2. Mandatory Injunctions Flashcards
(20 cards)
- Reluctance to Grant?
Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham [1971] The court requires unusually strong and clear evidence, with a “high degree of assurance” that the injunction is correct if the case goes to trial.
Films Rover International Ltd [1986] A more flexible approach is taken, weighing the greater risk of injustice whether the injunction is granted or refused.
National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd [2009] A unified test is applied, with the court choosing the course that minimizes irremediable prejudice to either party.
- Approaches to Mandatory Injunctions
A & N. Pharmacy Ltd v United Drug Wholesale Ltd [1996] The approach required that there is a serious question to be tried along with a balance of convenience.
Boyhan v Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry [1992]: This shifted the standard closer to English cases, demanding that a strong and clear case be established to give the court a degree of assurance.
Lingham v HSE [2005]: In mandatory cases, the injunction can only be granted if there is a ‘strong case’ likely to succeed at trial.
Okunade v Min for Justice & Others [2012]: The Supreme Court approved the higher standard detailed in Lingham, reinforcing the need for exceptional strength in the evidence before granting an injunction.
- Shelbourne Approach
Shelbourne Hotel Holdings Ltd [2008]
Court should adopt whatever course would carry the lower risk of injustice if it turns out to
have been the ‘wrong’ decision
- Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions
Similar tests, but balance of convenience is unlikely to lie in favour of granting mandatory relief (Shelbourne)
- Considerations??
Taite & Anor v Beades [2019]
The most important consideration for the court on an application for an interlocutory
injunction is the need for it to take an overall approach which will minimise the risk of
injustice (Taite)
So, generally the strong case requirement should be met (Lingham, Okunade, Taite) but may
not always be insisted on where withholding an injunction would lead to higher risk of
injustice and minimising the risk of injustice is key (Taite)
- Quia Timet Injunctions
Quia Timet = “because he fears”
Restrains threatened or imminent wrongful behaviour
- Quia Timet (Part 2.)
will be exercised
* where a person threatens and intends to do an unlawful act or
* where the plaintiff’s rights have already been infringed and he
alleges that the infringement will be repeated
more difficult to establish as a matter of evidence that there is a
sufficient risk of future injury to justify the grant of an injunction
Court must consider how likely it is that injury will in fact occur and
how severe the apprehended damage is likely to be
- Quia Timet Tests
Redland Bricks v Morris [1969]
Where mandatory quia timet injunction sought, must show very strong probability that grave
damage would accrue
Attorney General (Boswell) v Rathmines and Pembroke Joint [1904]
Proof of actual and real danger, a strong probability, almost amounting to moral certainty
- Quia Timet Cases (Part 2.)
Szabo v ESAT Digiphone Ltd [1998]
* Proven substantial risk of danger
* If no breach has taken place, may be more difficult to establish, as
a matter of evidence, that there is a sufficient risk of a future
injury to justify the immediate grant of an injunction
Ryanair Ltd v Aer Rianta cpt [2004] - must balance the magnitude of the evil
against the chances of its occurrence
Quia Timet Injunctions
- Injunctions in Employment Cases
Granting an injunction in an employment context raises particular issues (being an ongoing relationship).
- Should the courts force people to still work together?
Should it be mandatory or
prohibitory?
- Is keeping a person employed a positive obligation (mandatory injunction) or are
restraining dismissal (prohibitory injunction)
What if the contract has both positive and negative elements and the injunction sought is
technically only enforcing the negative obligations but has the effect of forcing a positive
obligation?
- Warner Case
Warner Brothers Pictures, Incorporated v Nelson [1937]
Contract between Bette Davis and Warner Bros to exclusively
act in their movies for a year.
She felt the movies were subpar and harming her reputation
so she accepted a movie offer elsewhere.
Warner successfully sued for the non-compete clause as it
was a negative clause, even though that had the effect of
forcing her to work with Warner (positive).
- Warner Case (Part 2.)
Argument by the court is she might be tempted to comply
with the positive obligations now but she wouldn’t be forced
to.
The court therefore is only enforcing her negative obligations.
This is quite a narrow reading of the impact of the court’s
decision which is somewhat out of step with equity generally.
- Page Records Case
Page One Records Ltd v Britton [1968]
Positive Obligations: The band was required to perform duties under the management of Page One Records.
Negative Obligation: The band was prohibited from working with any other management firms.
Interdependence of Obligations: Enforcing the negative obligation (i.e., preventing the band from taking on alternative management) essentially ensures that the band exclusively performs under the positive obligations to Page One. Thus, enforcing one obligation effectively enforces the other.
- Tesco Case
Tesco Stores Ltd v Union of Shop Distribute and Allied Workers [2024]
Tesco’s “fire and rehire” strategy involved dismissing employees only to immediately rehire them on new terms—a workaround of the contract rather than a traditional dismissal.
The union sought an injunction to stop these removals. While the High Court granted the injunction, the Court of Appeal later overturned it.
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the injunction because, despite the rehire, there was no breakdown in trust and confidence, and damages alone wouldn’t adequately address the resulting job uncertainty or loss of satisfaction.
- Issues in Employment Injunctions
Type of Relief Sought:
Determine if the injunction is prohibitory (stopping an action) or mandatory (compelling a particular behavior).
Consider whether the test applied is simply whether there is a serious issue to be tried or if there must be a strong case.
Nature of the Ongoing Relationship:
If there is a lack of trust and confidence between the parties, courts are less inclined to force them to work together.
Type of Responsibilities Involved:
The roles in question can vary widely—from administrative duties (as in Wallace) to senior management roles (as in Bergin)—affecting the appropriate form of relief.
- Employment Injunctions (Ireland)
Lingham v Health Service Executive [2005]
Even if an order appears as prohibitory, if it is mandatory in effect (such as those restraining dismissal or requiring reinstatement), the plaintiff must meet a strong case requirement. This case highlights how the distinction between mandatory and prohibitory orders can become blurred, with the underlying relief sought dictating a higher evidential standard.
- Bergin case
Bergin v Galway Clinic Doughiska [2007] The plaintiff demonstrated a strong case regarding unfair dismissal due to a lack of fair procedures.
The court granted an interlocutory order restraining the dismissal and blocked the employer from hiring a replacement, as recruiting someone new would hinder the plaintiff’s return.
However, the court refused an order explicitly requiring re-engagement because it essentially prevented a temporary hire rather than addressing the core issues.
Additionally, the case highlights that the higher the employee’s position—where trust and confidence have broken down—the less likely the court is to enforce an ongoing employment relationship
- Other Examples?
Coffey v William Connolly & Sons [2007] : An order was granted restraining the defendant from carrying out the plaintiff’s purported dismissal, effectively pausing the dismissal process.
Wallace v Irish Aviation Authority [2012] An order was issued restraining the defendant from placing the plaintiff on administrative leave, preventing actions that would hinder the plaintiff’s reinstatement.
These cases are considered outliers, as such orders—targeting specific employment actions prior to trial—are exceptionally unusual in the broader context of employment injunction practice.
- Injunctions to Restrain the Appointment of Third Party
- Coffey v William Connolly & Sons Ltd
- Bergin v Galway Clinic Doughiska Ltd
Employment Injunctions in Ireland
- Orders Requiring Payment of an Employee’s Salary Pending Trial
Fennelly v Assicurazioni Generali SPA [1985]: Courts were willing to grant interim orders for salary payment even without a continuing relationship of trust and confidence between the parties.
Stoskus v Goode Concrete Ltd [2007]: The approach has shifted, and now the employee must demonstrate a strong case before such an order is made.
This evolution shows how the criteria for granting interim salary orders have become more stringent to safeguard against unwarranted relief.
