Cases - Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems

Record details

Name

Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems

Date

(1993)

Citation

FSR 468

Keywords

Rights of light - interim mandatory injunctions

Summary

This case did not relate to rights of light, but it sets out the principles for the grant of interim mandatory injunctions, which are also applicable to rights of light cases. The plaintiff claimed by way of interlocutory (interim) injunction, the delivery up of certain computer software following alleged repudiation of the contract by the defendant. If a mandatory injunction was refused, it was unlikely that the defendant would be in a position to pay damages to the plaintiff if the latter succeeded at trial. The judge considered whether the circumstances justified the ordering of a mandatory injunction. The following principles were set out which govern the grant of a mandatory interim injunction:

• The overriding consideration is which course of action (i.e. granting an injunction or not) is likely to involve the least risk of injustice if it turns out to be wrong.
• The court must keep in mind that an order which requires a party to take some positive step at an interlocutory stage, may well carry a greater risk of injustice if it turns out to have been wrongly made than an order which merely prohibits action, thereby preserving the status quo.
• It is legitimate for the court to consider whether it feels a high degree of assurance that the plaintiff will be able to establish his right at a trial. That is because the greater the degree of assurance that the plaintiff will ultimately establish his right, the less will be the risk of injustice if the injunction is granted.
• Even where the court is unable to feel any high degree of assurance that the plaintiff will establish his right, there may still be circumstances in which it is appropriate to grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage. Those circumstances will exist where the risk of injustice if the injunction is refused sufficiently outweighs the risk of injustice if it is granted.

On the facts of the case, the judge considered that there was no doubt that, if no injunction was granted but the plaintiff was successful at trial, damages would be an inadequate remedy for the plaintiff, as the defendant had insufficient money to pay damages. He also considered that there was a risk that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the defendant, if an injunction was granted but the defendant was ultimately successful at trial, as it would be very difficult to quantify the defendant's losses. In deciding where the least risk of injustice lay, the judge took account of the fact that he felt a high degree of assurance that the plaintiff would succeed in establishing at trial that the defendant was in repudiatory breach of the contract. He therefore granted the plaintiff a mandatory interim injunction.