Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Stratford and Son Ltd v Lindley |
Old test requiring plaintiff to show a prima facie case |
|
American Cyanamid v Ethicon |
Lord Diplock set out modern test requiring a serious question to be tried plus the balance of convenience - court should not attempt to resolve conflicts of interest in affidavits i) irreparable loss - damages an inadequate remedy ii) if evenly balanced, preserve status quo iii) last resort: relative strength of cases |
|
Savill v Byrne |
Laffoy J identified serious conflicts of evidence in the affidavits which showed that cross-examination would be necessary at the main trial |
|
Campus Oil v Min for Industry and and Energy |
Cyanamid test followed by Irish courts |
|
Okunade v Minister for Justice |
Campus Oil test could be applied, with suitable adaptations, in the public law context of judicial review |
|
Chieftain Construction v Ryan |
Test requires that a "fair case" is demonstrated. Edwards J confused as to whether he could consider strength of parties cases in considering if there was a fair question to be tried |
|
Westman Holdings v McCormack |
Court held that employees, having recently lost their jobs, would not be in a position to pay damages if an injunction were granted and they subsequently lost at the main trial |
|
Dunne v Dunlaoighre-Rathdown Co Co |
Environmental campaigners sought injunction to prevent construction of a motorway, although local authority claimed their undertaking as to damages was worthless, Supreme Court held that extent of loss injunction would cause had not been demonstrated by proper evidence and granted injunction |
|
Curust v Loewe-Lack-Werk |
Finlay CJ held that mere difficulty in quantifying damages was not enough - must be impossible and because it related to commercial market and loss was financial, this was not satisfied |
|
AIB v Diamond |
Clarke J rejected the idea that court should consider the strength of each party's case - significant additional evidence would be required |
|
Ancorde Ltd v Horgan |
Where hearing took 5 days, Laffoy J supported the view that the strength of the parties cases should be considered |
|
Official Custodian for Charities v Mackey |
Interlocutory injunction will be granted where the defendant has no arguable defence |
|
Reynolds v Malocco |
A "bald" plea of justification as a defence to a defamatory action would not prevent the award of an injunction - there must be some evidence |
|
S.33 Defamation Act 2009 |
Statutory provision allowing the High Court to make an order prohibiting publication of a defamatory statement where the defendant has no defence likely to succeed |
|
Evans v Carlyle |
Injunction granted against defamatory graffiti written on a neighbour's wall despite the fact that there was a "just and reasonable" basis that justification defence may succeed |
|
O'Brien v RTE |
Plaintiff required to demonstrate a "convincing case" in order to be granted an injunction preventing the defendant from publishing confidential material relating to his banking affairs |
|
Jacob v Irish Amateur Rowing Union |
The grant or refusal of injunction to allow defendant to enter a qualifying regatta would effectively end dispute, so Laffoy J refused the injunction |
|
Rogers v An Post |
Keane J refused to grant an injunction because it would precluded the defendant from obtaining a decision at the full trial - could only happen in an "exceptional case" where evidence is so strong that refusal would lead to unnecessary waste of time and money or do an overwhelming injustice to the plaintiff |
|
S.19(2) Industrial Relations Act 1990 |
Statutory provision stating that where a union has held a secret ballot which favours industrial action, no ex parte application can be granted in favour of the employer or where a fair case in established that action was in furtherance of trade dispute |
|
Pesca Valentia v Min for Fisheries |
Supreme Court held that interlocutory relief could be granted where a law is alleged to be unconstitutional in order to protect constitutional right - presumption of constitutionality and potential damage to common good relevant in applying Campus Oil test |
|
Martin v An Bord Pleanála |
O'Sullivan J was of the view that it would take something "overwhelming" to suspend the application of domestic law pending trial |
|
R v Sec of State ex parte Factortame |
English test for suspending domestic law pending trial - close to old Stratford test |