#3125 - Remedies - GDL Equity and Trusts

Identify main case

- C. must show breach of recognisable right / tort (Day v Brownrigg).

• breach of contract SP, IMI, IPI.

• breach of copyright/confidence SO, IPI, Account.

• unpaid debt/damages FO.

• Specific Performance

  - Definition: court order to carry out positive obligation under contract (final remedy only).

  - Test: damages not adequate (Adderley v Dixon).

  • land: contracts to buy/sell or grant estate/interest SP.

  • personalty: if unique/rare.

    • NOT ordinary articles of commerce (Cohen v Roche: Hepplewhite chairs).

    • shares if not available on market (Duncuft v Albrecht; Oughtred v IRC + Nevile v Wilson: private cos.)

    • articles of unusual beauty, rarity + distinction (Falcke v Gray: Ming vase; Philips v Lamdin: ornate door; Pusey v Pusey: King Cnut’s battle horn).

    • articles of unique value to c. (Behnke v Bede: ship conforming to special German regulations).

    • limited source of supply (Sky Petroleum v VIP: petrol + diesel during OPEC oil crisis).

  • contracts for service: if losses from non-performance not quantifiable – requirements:

    • 1. irreplaceable.

      • Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC: party conference cancelled at last minute no alternative.

      • Evans v BBC: party broadcast cancelled political loss not quantifiable.

    • 2. sufficiently clearly defined workable court order.

      • Ryan v Mutual Tontine Assoc: provide porter ‘constantly in attendance’ no SP (+ supervision).

      • Posner v Scott-Lewis: employ porter for specific duties SP: specific court order + supervision.

    • 3. no ongoing supervision required (Co-Op Insurance v Argyll Stores: cov. to keep shop open no SP).

    • contracts for personal service:

      • employees: NO SP (s236 TULR(C)A 1992).

      • contractors: SP rare – policy reasons + equitable principles.

        • 1. not if constant supervision required.

        • 2. not if SP akin to slavery (De Francesco v Barnum: dancing girls).

          • factors: duration, relationship, control, proximity (Giles & Co v Morris).

        • 3. not if defeated by poor performance: equity will not act in vain (Giles & Co v Morris).

          • artistic/judgment SP unlikely; technical SP more likely (can supervise).

  - Defences:

  • 1. clean hands: inc. intent to carry out obs. (Coatsworth v Johnson: d. in breach of cov. to cultivate farm well).

  • 2. unreasonable delay/laches: dep. on facts (Eads v WIlliams)

  • 3. mistake (Tamplin v James).

  • 4. hardship: to d. or 3^rd party (Patel v Ali: vendor of house cancer, leg amputated, 2 kids, no English no SP).

  Injunctions

  - Definition: court order requiring d. to do or refrain from doing particular act.

  • jurisdiction: High Court – s37(1) SCA 1981; County Court – s38 CCA 1984 (as amended).

  - Perpetual/final injunctions: final remedy.

  • prohibitive: prevent breach of obligation (Venables v News Group).

  • mandatory: require performance (like SP) or ‘restorative’ : to undo wrong (Jones v Stones).

  Interim Prohibitory Injunction (IPI)

  - 3-stage test (American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd, [Ld Diplock]).

  • 1. serious question: c’s case not frivolous/vexatious (Morning Star v Express Newspapers: similar names).

    • low threshold – some prospect of success needed (Mothercase v Robson Books).

  • 2. balance of convenience: trying to balance risk of injustice to either party.

    • a. adequacy of damages: would money compensate?

      • FOR C: if IPI refused + c. won trial: would damages compensate c. for pre-trial losses (+ could d. pay)? injunction usually refused.

      • FOR D: if IPI granted + d. won trial: would damages compensate d. for pre-trial losses (+ c. could pay)? injunction likely to be granted – but c. unable not determinative (Allen v Jambo Holdings)

    • b. other + special factors – inc:

      • loss of employment (Fellows & Son v Fisher)

      • loss of goodwill (Associated Newspapers v Insert Media)

      • closing of business – (Potters-Ballotini v Weston-Baker)

      • preserving substantial investment (Catnic Components Ltd v Stressline Ltd).

  • 3. preservation of status quo ante (i.e. before last change): decisive if balance of convenience even.

    • not fixed: status quo simply point in time – can change according to actions of parties.

    • usually favours injunction (Garden Cottage Foods v Milk Marketing Board)

    • but delay: favours letting wrong continue (Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham).

  • (4. merits of case: considered as last resort – only if balance of convenience even + 1 party’s case v. strong).

  - Exceptional cases: American Cynamid not followed.

  • 1. trial of action unlikely: injunction effectively settles matter in 1 party’s favour injunction only if c’s case overwhelming on merits (Cambridge Nutrition v BBC).

  • 2. defamation: if not obvious lie + d. raises justification def. no injunction (Greene v Associated Newspapers).

  • 3. freedom of expression: no restriction pre-trial unless court satisfied c. likely to establish publication should not be allowed (s12(3) HRA 1998; Cream Holdings v Banerjee; Douglas v Hello!)

  • 4. industrial disputes: governed by s221(2) TUALRA 1992.

  • 5. claims against public authorities exercising statutory powers/duties: c. needs extremely strong case on merits (Smith v ILEA).

  • 6. certain plain + uncontested breaches (Hubbard v Pitt).

  • 7. freezing injunctions + interim mandatory injunctions: see below.

  • 8. certain intellectual property cases.

  - N.B.: if amounts to SP (e.g. ‘not to work with anyone but X’ cf. SP to) no IPI if SP would fail (Page One Records v Britton).

  Interim Mandatory Injunction (IMI): often used as pre-trial alternative to SP (holding remedy).

  - Test: court feels ‘high degree of assurance’ that IMI shown to be right (Shepherd Homes v Sandham, [Megarry J]; approved in Locabail Intl. Finance v Agroexport).

  • factors: damages trivial? proportion between d’s + c’s damage?

  • if SP likely at full trial, IMI (if ordering same thing) likely at interim stage (Page One Records v Britton).

  • Evans v BBC: IMI to compel d. to screen party political broadcast damages not adequate remedy for pol. loss.

  Search Order (Anton Pillar Order)

  - Definition: order compelling d. to allow c. access to premises for search + seizure of ev. supporting c’s case.

  • purpose: prevent d. destroying/removing ev. (esp. copyright/confidence/fraud cases).

  • without notice (EMI Ltd v Pandit).

  • jurisdiction: s7 Civil Procedure Act 1997; CPR 1998.

  • d’s failure to comply: contempt of court + adverse inferences drawn at trial.

  - Test: stringent (Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd, [Ormrod J]: ‘where no alternative’).

  • 1. extremely strong prima facie case.

  • 2. v. serious actual/potential damage to c.

  • 3. clear ev. that d. has incriminating docs: NOT fishing.

  • 4. real possibility d. may destroy them.

    • d’s character relevant: need ev. of dishonesty/evasion (Lock v Beswick, [Hoffmann J]: ‘family men with mortgages’, not ‘fly-by-night video pirates’ no SO.)

  • 5. c. must make full + frank disclosure + undertaking in damages (+ security if appropriate).

  - Procedural safeguards (Universal Thermosensors v Hibben).

  • 1. supervising solicitor present: experienced, not member of c’s firm, explain matters to d.

  • 2. office hours: to allow d. to seek legal advice.

  • 3. d. or responsible employee present.

  • 4. list of items to be removed made + d. can check: strict (Columbia Pictures v Robinson).

  • 5. if occupied by woman alone: 1 of party female.

  • additional safeguards:

    • solicitor in charge responsible: failure to comply with exact terms contempt of court.

    • d. may apply for discharge/variation at short notice (Lock v Beswick).

    • d. not required to disclose incriminating info (Rank Film v Video Info Centre).

      • unless IP infringement (s72 SCA 1981).

  - No Art 8 ECHR conflict (Chappell v UK: legitimate aim (protecting others’ rights) + proportional (safeguards)).

  Freezing Order (Mareva Injunction)

  - Definition: order not to deal/remove assets from jurisdiction before trial.

  • purpose: prevent d. removing assets defeat damages award – equity will not act in vain (esp. unpaid debts etc.)

  • without notice.

  • jurisdiction: The Mareva; s37 SCA 1981: may be granted where ‘just + convenient’.

  • d’s failure to comply: contempt of court.

  - Test: stringent (Derby & Co v Weldon).

  • 1. c. has good, arguable case: i.e. likely to win at trial (Z Ltd v A-Z).

  • 2. d. has assets in jurisdiction (or outside, if extra-territorial order: Re BCCI SA).

  • 3. real risk that assets will be removed/dissipated: good, arguable case for risk (Customs & Excise Comms v Anchors Food Ltd, [Neuberger J]): dep. on d’s character.

    • evasive: difficult to contact etc.

    • dishonest: e.g. debt-dodger (Third Chandris Shipping v Unimarine).

    • means + know-how to removes assets easily.

  - Procedural safeguards:

  • c. must give full + frank disclosure + fairly state d’s position (Third Chandris v Unimarine).

  • proceedings must usually have been issued (or undertaking provided) (Fourie v Le Roux).

  • c. gives undertaking in damages (+ security if appropriate).

  • d. may apply for order to be discharged.

  • d. allowed to keep reasonable amount of money: for living/business expenses.

  Defences to Injunctions

  • 1. c’s conduct: ‘clean hands’ (Argyll v Argyll); ‘he who seeks equity must do equity’ (Measures v Measures).

  • 2. unreasonable delay/laches (Bulmer v Bollinger).

    • esp. interim injunction (Shepherd Homes v Sandham: few months no injunction).

  • 3. acquiescence (Bulmer v Bollinger: d. did nothing about c. using name ‘champagne’ for BabyCham for decades).

    • test: dishonest/unconscionable for c. to enforce rights (Shaw v Applegate, [Buckley LJ]]).

  • 4. hardship: to d. or 3^rd party (Maythorn v Palmer: d. got job with 3^rd. p. in breach of cov. with c. no SP, b/c 3^rd p).

  Account of Profits

  - Definition: order to pay over unauthorised profits.

  • purpose: disgorge d. of unauthorised profits.

  ...