Legal Control Cases

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: k1016450
  • Created on: 25-04-14 11:52
View mindmap
  • Legal Control
    • Co-op Insurance v Argyll Stores 1997
      • Facts: A lease was granted with condition to keep the store open during usual business hours. Unfortunately, profit wasn't good and therefore the store owners closed the store, even when offered a rent reduction.
      • Principle: Specific performance will not be awarded where damages are appropriate, due to compliance issues and unfairness.
      • Outcome: The store was to remain closed, but the defendants had to pay damages.
    • Jaggard v Sawyer 1995
      • Facts: The defendants wanted to build a driveway on land they believed to be public, however it was private land and so they had trespassed and breached a restrictive covenant although the council had originally given them planning permission due to an error.
      • Principle: It would be 'oppressive' to grant an injunction where damages are more appropriate, where injury is small and capable of being estimated in money.
      • Outcome: Damages had to be paid as removing the driveway was not a viable option.
    • American Cyanamid v Ethicon 1975
      • Facts: Claimed the defendants were about to launch a product that infringed on their patent. Originally the interlocutory injunction was granted.
      • Principle: The court must look at the balance of convenience - protecting the plaintiff against a violation and protecting the defendant's right to exercise their legal rights. It must be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried in order to grant an interlocutory injunction, that damages would be not be adequate at trial and if there is an even balance then the status quo should be kept.
      • Outcome:The Court of Appeal decision was reversed and American Cyanamid was given the injunction.
    • Cream Holdings v Banerjee 2004
      • Facts: Claimants sought an injunction to stop confidential information regarding financial irregularities from being published in a newspaper.
      • Principle: Have to look at whether they would be "likely" to be successful that the publication would not be published against the public interest (due to S12 Human Rights Act, which means more than a real prospect. This can be dispensed with where circumstances make it necessary.
      • Outcome: The public interest is a strong factor in deciding injunctions and therefore the injunction was not given.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Legal Control resources »