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;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Specific performance requirements:
|
-only positive obligations
(Negative restrained by injunction) -Where dmgs not adequate |
|
|
Damages not Adequate - case?
And cases which held that damages weren't adequate |
Adderley v Dixion - (ex for not - for contract for sale of stock or goods)
Pusey v Pusey-Historical horn Falcke v Gray -Ming vase Cohan v Roch - Hecklewhite chairs - X Duncuft v Albrecht - non public stocks |
|
|
non personal services cases
|
Yerrall v Great Yarmouth - licence and couldnt' find alt premises and political effects not able to comp by damages
Evans v BBC and IBA also |
|
|
Reasons not to award SP also defences to all
|
-Personal services (next slide) -Constant supervision - Co-op v Argyll with Ryan v Mutual Trustees-Mutuality - Lumley v Ravenscroft - (minor) - Clean hands - Coatsworth v Johnson (husbandlike manner case) -Delay - Eads v Williams - unreasonable delay -Hardship - Patel v Ali |
|
|
Contracts for services - statute to prevent employees
Cases on personal services |
Trade Union and Labour Relations act 1992 - s.236 -requires an Employee!!
against public policy - De Francesco v Barnum (contracts of employment to slavery) imperfections in performance - Giles v Morris |
|
|
What questions to consider with the contrasting cases of- Co-op v Argyll with Ryan v Mutual Trustees
and Capita trust v Chatham Maritime |
the act defined enough length, style subject etc
can the court have a one off decision |
|
|
Injunction requirements
|
only a recognisable legal or equitable right
-Day v Brownrigg (ex of not one - right to house name) -Then different if Mandatory(postive) or prohibitory(negative) |
|
|
Mandatory Interim Injunction requirements
|
Shepherd Homes v Sandham- high degree of assurance approved Locabail v Agroexport
NOT LIMITED TO CONTRACTS but suffer from same reasons against awarding them |
|
|
interim Prohibitory requirements
|
The American Cyanamid Guidelines
Lord Diplock -Not frivolou or vexation -Mothercare v Robson Books also Real right -Balance of convenience -Then if still 50-50 status quo ante |
|
|
-Balance of convenience
Adequacy of damages steps |
2 steps to each part!!!
1. if C wins w/ inj refuesd A)would dmgs be adequate B)Can D pay (i.e from sale of product) 2.If C loses w/ inj awarded A) Dmgs adequate (consider speculative nature and chance of dimunition) B)Can C pay |
|
|
Other factors to consider with the guidelines
|
Fellows v Fisher -loss of employment
Associated Newspapers v insert media Damage to goodwill Potteres-Ballotini v Weston-Baker - Closing down of business Catnic v Stressline - Preserving substantial investment |
|
|
Where American Cyanamid guidelines dont apply
|
Where the injunction would settle the case- only granted if overwhelming- Cambridge nutrition v BBC
Defamation - Greene v Associated Newspapers Freedom of expression - Douglas v Hello Public authorities exercising statue - Smith v ILEA |
|
|
Search orders main case?
|
Anton Piller v Manufacturing
1. Extremely strong prima facie case 2. very serous damage, potential or actual 3. Clear evidence that D has incriminating evidence
|
|
|
Requirements for enforcements
|
Thermosensors v Hibben
carrried out in presence of solicitor btw sun rise and sun down in presence of D or employee List of items taken give to D If woman need a woman part of party |
|
|
Freezing injunctions requirements
|
Derby v Weldon
-Good arguable case -D within jurisdiction -Real risk they will be removed or dissipated (an good arguable risk- Anchor food) |
|
|
what is meant by "A Good arguable case"
|
Ninemia Corp v Trave - more than barely capable of serious argument but not necessarily more than 50%
|
|
|
What is needed in a freezing order
|
Full and frank disclosure- (argue both sides) as without notice- Third chandris v Unimarine
Normally need substantive proceedings or an undertaking to do so. |
|
|
Account
|
for incidental profit from a breach of fiduciary duties- Boardman v PhippsA fiduciary for a bribe or secret profit - Hong kong v Reidunauthorised breach of confidence - spycatcher
|
