iii. The testfor granting an injunction
10. The court will be familiar with s. 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which provides that it may grant an injunction where it is "just and convenient to do so." This requires that the claimant have an interest which merits protection, and a legal or equitable principle which justifies protecting that interest by ordering the defendant not to do something (Re G (Court of Protection: Injunction) [2022] 3 WLR 1339, §55)3. 11. The test for an interim injunction under CPR 25.1(1)(a), is usually that stated in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396: involving consideration of whether there is a serious question to be tried, the adequacy of damages for either party, and the balance of convenience. American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396: involving consideration of whether 12. The first part of that test ("serious question to be tried") is modified in cases in which the court is considering "whether to grant any relief which, zfgranted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression" (s. 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ("HRA") [AB/213]). The court must then be satisfied that the applicant is "likely to establish", at trial, that the act in question should not be allowed (s. 12(3) HRA). 13. "Likely" here simply means "more likely than not," although a "lesser degree of likelihood will suffice" where the potential adverse consequences of the apprehended act are particularly grave (Cream Holdings v Banerjee [2005]1 AC 253, §22 [AB/13]). 14. If the respondent is neither present nor represented, the court must also be satisfied "(a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or (b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified" (s. 12(2) HRA). “(a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or (b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified ” (s. 12(2) HRA). it may grant an injunction where it is “ just and convenient to do so .” This requires that something ( Re G (Court of Protection: Injunction) [2022] 3 WLR 1339, §55) 3 . 12. The first part of that test (“ serious question to be tried ”) is modified in cases in which the court is considering “whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the Convention right to freedom of expression ” (s. 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“ HRA ”) [AB/213] ). The court must then be satisfied that the applicant is “likely to establish”, at trial, that the act in question should not be allowed (s. 12(3) HRA). 13. “ Likely ” here simply means “ more likely than not, ” although a “ lesser degree of likelihood will suffice ” where the potential adverse consequences of the apprehended act are particularly grave ( Cream Holdings v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253, §22 [AB/13] ).
iv. Trespass
15. Trespass to land consists of "any unjustifiable intrusion by one person upon land in the possession of another", which is "actionable without proof of damage" (Clerk & Lindsell on 15. Trespass to land consists of “ any unjustifiable intrusion by one person upon land in the possession of another ”, which is “ actionable without proof of damage ” ( Clerk & Lindsell on
3 Baker LJ, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal and considering the judgment of Lord Leggatt in Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd 12022] 2 WLR 703 ("Broad Idea"). in Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2022] 2 WLR 703 (“Broad Idea”).
25 44
5
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator