Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T16:33:57.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interlocutory Injunctions Since Cyanamid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Christine Gray
Get access

Extract

The decision in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. was hailed. rather unenthusiastically, as a revolutionary development in the law governing interlocutory injunctions; it was seen as an abandonment of the earlier approach exemplified by, although not discussed in, Stratford and Sons Ltd. v. Lindley. There was some indignation at the apparent loss of a quick, relatively cheap means of settling cases by decision on an application for an interlocutory injunction, and considerable doubt as to the suitability of the principles set out by Lord Diplock in Cyanamid for use in all types of interlocutory action.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , November 1981 , pp. 307 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 [1975] 1 All E.R. 504.

2 [1964] 3 All E.R. 102.

3 See Gore [1975] M.L.R. 672; Prescott [1975] L.Q.R. 168; Wallington [1976] C.L.J. 82.

4 See for example Evans Marshall v. Bertola [1973] 1 All E.R. 992, Lord Diplock in Cyanamid [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, 509, Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., Vol. 21Google Scholar; Snell, , Principles of Equity, 26th ed., p. 708Google Scholar, Pettit, , Equity and the Law of Trusts, 4th ed., p. 394Google Scholar

5 [1972] 1 All E.R. 1023.

6 For a discussion of the pre-Cyanamid situation see the works referred to in n. 4.

7 Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd. v. Gardner [1968] 2 All E.R. 163 is an exception.

8 [1974] F.S.R. 312

9 [1978] F.S.R. 143.

10 [1975] 2 All E.R. 829.

11 Roskill and Megaw L.JJ. in Alfred Dunhill Ltd. v. Sunoptic S.A. [1979] F.S.R. 337, Lord Denning in Fellowes v. Fisher; Megaw, L.J. in Camellia Tanker Ltd. S.A. v. International Transport Workers' Federation [1976] I.C.R. 274Google Scholar

12 [1978] 1 AH E.R. 411.

13 [1979] F.S.R. 466.

14 [1980] F.S.R. 68.

15 Camellia Tanker Ltd. S.A. v. International Transport Workers' Federation, John Hayter Motor Underwriting Agencies Ltd. v. RBHS Agencies Ltd. [1977] F.S.R. 285 (apart from the judgment of Buckley L.J.), Lord Denning in Smith v. I.L.E.A. [1978] 1 AH E.R. 411, Re Lord Cable [1976] 3 All E.R. 417. Also part of the claim in Bestobell Paints Ltd. v. Bigg [1975] F.S.R. 421.

16 Re Euro Hotel (Belgravia) Ltd. [1975] 3 All E.R. 1075; Wombles Ltd. v. Wombles Skips Ltd. [1977] R.P.C. 99; Harrison and Starke v. Polydor [1977] F.S.R. 1; Lyngstadt v. Anabas [1977] F.S.R. 62; Morning Star Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1977] F.S.R. 113; Polydor Ltd. v. Harlequin Record Shop [1980] F.S.R. 362.

17 [1975] F.S.R. 507.

18 [1975] F.S.R. 237.

19 [1976] R.P.C. 653.

20 For example, Scarman L.J. in Potters-Ballotini Ltd. v. Weston Baker [1977] R.P.C. 202; Browne L.J. in Fellowes v. Fisher; Buckley, L.J. in Catnic Components Ltd. v. Stressline Ltd. [1976] F.S.R. 157.Google Scholar

21 See n. 12.

22 Thus it is problematical whether the court was influenced by the Cyanamid principles in the following cases: Belfast Ropework Co. Ltd. v. Pixdane Ltd. [1976] F.S.R. 337; Apple Corps v. Lingasong [1977] F.S.R. 345; The Great American Success Co. Ltd. v. Kattaineh [1976] F.S.R. 554.

23 As in Corruplast Ltd. v. George Harrison Agencies Ltd. [1978] R.P.C. 761; Landi den Hartog NV v. Sea Bird (Clean Air Fuel Systems) Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 502; Glaxo Laboratories v. Pharmax Ltd. [1976] F.S.R. 278; Monet of London Ltd. v. Sybil Richards Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 368.

24 Jaybeam Ltd. V. Abru Aluminium Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 308; Hovercraft Development Ltd. v. Sealand Hovercraft Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 393; Tavener Rutledge Ltd. v. Trexapalm Ltd. [1977] R.P.C. 275; Chappell v. Times Newspapers [1975] 2 All E.R. 233; Lord Denning and Eveleigh L.J. in Meade v. London Borough of Haringey [1979] 2 All E.R. 1016, Thanet D.C. v. Ninedrive Ltd. [1978] 1 All E.R. 703, J. C. Penney Co. Inc. v. Penneys Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 367; Lennon v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 573; Brown v. A.U.E.W. [1976] I.CR. 147; Crest Homes v. Ascott [1980] F.S.R. 396. Of course it is possible that in fact there have been considerably more post-Cyanamid cases decided on this basis, perhaps even probable, for where the decision on an interlocutory injunction is based on the judge's own view of the merits of the case then such a decision may well not be reported if no novel point of substantive law is involved and no reference to any authority on the award of interlocutory injunctions is made.

25 See below at p. 316 for a discussion of these exceptional cases.

26 [1980] F.S.R. 85.

27 Since the decision on the interlocutory injunction often finally disposes of the case it is not possible in a general way to look for a strong correlation between the outcome of the interlocutory and final decisions as confirmatory evidence that judges are influenced by their view of the merits of the case when they decide the interlocutory action

28 [1979] F.S.R. 208.

29 See, for example, Foseco International Ltd. v. Fordath Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 507.

30 In theory the Court of Appeal's power to reverse the decision of a trial judge on the award of an interlocutory injunction is limited. Lord Diplock and Lord Scarman criticised the Court of Appeal for their failure to recognise this in Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs [1980] 1 All E.R. 529; as the latter said. “Injunctive relief is discretionary, and the discretion is the judge's. An appellate court may intervene if the judge misdirected himself in law, took into account irrelevant or failed to take into account relevant matters.” The criticism made of the Court of Appeal in this case is equally appropriate to several other Court of Appeal decisions where there was no new evidence to justify their reversal of the lower court's decision (as there had been in a few cases: Belfast Ropework; Alfred Dunhill; Tetrosyl) and where the Court of Appeal ignored its limited role.

31 [1976] F.S.R. 114. See also Corruplast Ltd. v. George Harrison Agencies Ltd. [1978] R.P.C. 761.

32 Reference to the merits at this stage in Lord Diplock's framework was made in only nine of the reported cases: by the first instance judge in Camellia Tanker Ltd. S.A. v. International Transport Workers' Federation [1976] I.C.R. 274; by Lord Denning and Browne L.J. in Fellowes v. Fisher [1975] 2 All E.R. 829; Slick Brands (Clothing) Ltd. v. Jollybird Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 470; Lyngstadt v. Anabas [1977] F.S.R. 62; Combe International Ltd. v. Scholl (U.K.) Ltd. [1977] F.S.R. 464; Landi den Hartog B.V. v. Stopps [1976] F.S.R. 497; Constable v. Clarkson [1980] F.S.R. 123; Marazura Navegacion S.A. v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd. [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 283; Smith v. I.L.E.A. [1978] 1 All E.R. 411. In the last two cases such reference was not strictly necessary but was used to support a conclusion reached on the basis of other principles. Also in Landi den Hartog B.V. v. Stopps counsel had argued at this stage in the case that the defendant's case was disproportionately stronger than the plaintiff's. The judge responded, “For my part, I would have thought that the arguments advanced were more appropriate to the basic preliminary question of whether the plaintiff had failed to disclose any real prospect of succeeding on its claim. However, as they were advanced at this stage I will deal with them accordingly.”

33 See n. 24.

34 [1975] F.S.R. 421.

35 [1977] 2 All E.R. 751.

36 Lennon v. News Group Newspaper Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 573 is very similar in iK approach

37 [1980] N.L.J., 14 February, p. 168.

38 As for example, in B.B.C. v. Hearn [1978] 1 All E.R. 111; Smith v. I.L.E.A. [1978] 1 All E.R. 411; Aljose Fashions Ltd. v. Alfred Young Co. Lid. [1978] F.S.R. 364.

39 See Pettit, , Equity and the Law of Trusts, 4th ed., p. 413.Google Scholar

40 Newsweek Inc. v. B.B.C. [1979] R.P.C. 441 with the support of Stephenson and Shaw L.JJ., Office Overload Ltd. v. Gunn [1977] F.S.R. 39. In Bryanston Finance Ltd. v. de Vries (No. 2) [1975] 1 All E.R. 25 Buckley L.J. followed this approach. Sir John Pennycuick, however, did not approve of this. In Dunjord and Elliott Ltd. v. Johnson and Firth Brown Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 143 Lord Denning followed the approach suggested by Pennycuick L.J. in Fellowes v. Fisher; Roskill L.J. followed the Cyanamid guidelines to reach the same conclusion as Lord Denning; Lawton L.J. opted out completely. “This appeal should be allowed on a very simple ground, namely that the broad justice of the case does not require this injunction at this stage. Whatever may be the complexities of the law as set out in the American Cyanamid case, in my opinion that principle of law overrides everything.”

41 See n. 12.

42 [1977] F.S.R. 39.

43 [1979] F.S.R. 337.

44 Hounslow L.B.C. v. Twickenham [1970] 3 All E.R. 326; Shepherd Homes v. Sandham [1970] 3 All E.R. 402.

45 [1980] 1 All E.R. 912.

46 [1976] 1 All E.R. 25. See discussion by Wallington [1976] C.L.J. 82.

47 [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1061, and see p. 329.

48 See n. 12.

49 See Lord Fraser in N.W.L. Ltd. v. Woods [1979] 3 All E.R. 614; Roskill L.J. in B.B.C. v. Hearn [1978] I.C.R. Ill; Lord Denning in Star Sea Transport Corporation of Monrovia v. Slater, Laughton and Collarbone [1978] I.R.L.R. 507.

50 [1979] 3 All E.R. 614, 624.

51 This apparently led Roskill L.J. to suggest in Tetrosyl Ltd. v. Silver Paint and Lacquer Co. Ltd. [1980] F.S.R. 68 that there are inconsistencies between Cyanamid and N.W.L. Ltd. v. Woods. But it is clear from the House of Lords decision in Porter v. N.U.I. [1980] I.R.L.R. 404, a case in which their Lordships strongly reaffirmed their support for the Cyanamid principles, that where the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction would not have the effect of disposing of the action finally, the Cyanamid principles continue to apply to industrial action cases.

52 B.B.C. v. Hearn [1978] 1 All E.R. Ill; Express Newspapers Ltd. v. McShane [1979] 2 AH E.R. 360; Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd. v. Keys [1978] I.C.R. 582; Duport Steels Ltd. v. Sirs [1980] 1 All E.R. 529.

53 [1979] I.C.R. 755, 766.

54 [1979] I.C.R. 744, 644 respectively.

55 The wording of this passage follows the adaptation by Lord Denning in [1980] 1 All E.R. 538B, removing a double negative which confounds the intended sense.

56 [1979] 2 All E.R. 360.

57 [1980] 1 All E.R. 529, at pp. 537–538.

58 See the recent case Health Computing Ltd. v. Meek [1980] I.R.L.R. 437.

59 See The Athletes Foot Marketing Associates Inc. v. Cobra Sports Ltd. [1980] R.P.C. 343.

60 See Porter v. N.U.J. [1980] I.R.L.R. 404.

61 [1977] R.P.C. 202.

62 [1976] F.S.R. 497.

63 For example, Roussel-Uclaf v. G. D. Searle [1977] F.S.R. 125; Polaroid Corporation v. Eastman Kodak Co. [1977] R.P.C. 379.

64 Landi den Hartog B.V. v. Sea Bird Ltd.; Belfast Ropework Co. Ltd. v. Pixdane Ltd.; E.M.I. Records v. C.B.S. U.K. Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 1; Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill and Smith Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 529; Radley Gowns Ltd. v. Costas Spyrou [1975] F.S.R. 455; Ames Crosta Ltd. v. Pionex International Ltd. [1977] F.S.R. 46, Losinska v. C.P.S.A. [1976] I.C.R. 473; Roberts v. Candi-ware Ltd [1980] F.S.R. 352.

65 Wallington [1976] C.L.J. 82.

66 For example Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd. v. Keys [1978] I.C.R. 582; Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. v. Wade [1979] I.C.R. 664.

67 [1978] I.C.R. 582.

68 See n. 47.

69 See n. 43.

70 See, for example, Elanco Products Ltd. v. Mandops Ltd. [1979] F.S.R. 46.

71 Hymac Ltd. v. Priestman Brothers Ltd. [1978] R.P.C. 495; Ames Crosta Ltd. v. Pionex International Ltd. [1977] F.S.R. 46; Metric Resources Corporation v. Leasemetrix Ltd. [1979] F.S.R. 571.

72 [1978] F.S.R. 357.

73 See also Morning Star Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Express Newspapers Ltd. [1979] F.S.R. 113; The Athletes Foot Marketing Assoc. Inc. v. Cobra Sports Ltd. [1980] R.P.C. 343.

74 For example, Landi den Hartog B.V. v. Stopps [1976] F.S.R. 497; Catnic Components Ltd. v. Hill and Smith Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 529; Slickbrands (Clothing) Ltd. v. Jollybird Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 470.

75 See n. 18.

76 [1977] F.S.R. 62.

77 Morny Ltd. v. Ball and Rogers (1975) Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 91; Radtey Gowns Ltd. v. Costas Spyrou [1975] F.S.R. 455.

78 Catnic Components Ltd. v. Stressline Ltd. [1976] F.S.R. 157 and apparently also Aljose Fashions Ltd. v. Alfred Young and Co. Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 364, see Monet of London Ltd. v. Sybil Richards Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 368.

79 [1976] F.S.R. 337.

80 See n. 43. See also Vemon & Co. (Pulp Products) Ltd. v. Universal Pulp Containers Ltd. [1980] F.S.R. 179.

82 [1977] F.S.R. 345.

81 E.M.I. Records v. C.B.S. U.K. Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 1; Hymac Ltd. v. Priestman Brothers Ltd. [1978] R.P.C. 495; Ames Crosta Ltd. v. Pionex International Ltd. [1977] F.S.R. 46; Radley Gowns Ltd. v. Costas Spyrou [1975] F.S.R. 455; Belfast Ropework Ltd. v. Pixdane Ltd. [1976] F.S.R. 337; Landi den Hartog N.V. v. Sea Bird Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 502; Marazura Navegacion S.A. v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd. [1977] I Lloyd's Rep. 283.

83 Fisons Ltd. v. E. J. Godwin (Peat Industries) Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 653; Potters-Ballotini Ltd. v. Weston-Baker [1977] R.P.C. 202; Corruplast Ltd. v. George Harrison Agencies Ltd. [1979] R.P.C. 761.

84 Lewis v. Heffer [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1061; Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co. v. Gutman [1976] F.S.R. 545.

85 [1975] F.S.R. 529.

86 Polaroid Corporation v. Eastman Kodak [1977] R.P.C. 379; Roussell-Uclaf v. G. D. Searle and Co. [1977] F.S.R. 125.

87 Catnic Components Ltd. v. Clarksteel [1975] F.S.R. 535: Kwik Lok Corporation v. W.B.W. Engineers Ltd. [1975] F.S.R. 237.

88 Morny Ltd. v. Ball and Rogers (1975) Ltd. [1978] F.S.R. 91; Corruplast Ltd. v. George Harrison Agencies Ltd. [1978] R.P.C. 671.

89 Fisons Ltd. v. E. J. Godwin Ltd. [1976] R.P.C. 653; Potters-Ballotine Ltd. v. Weston Baker [1977] R.P.C. 202. Contrast these with Belfast Ropework Co. Ltd. v. Pixdane Ltd. [1976] F.S.R. 337.

90 Except in the first instance decision, later reversed, in Standtex International Limited v. C.B. Blades [1976] F.S.R. 114.

91 [1975] F.S.R. 455.

92 [1976] F.S.R. 554.

93 [1979] F.S.R. 46.

94 See also Hymac Ltd. v. Priestmans Brothers Ltd. [1978] R.P.C. 495; Belfast Ropework Co. Ltd. v. Pixdane Ltd. [1976] F.S.R. 337; Netlon v. Bridport-Gundry Ltd. [1979] F.S.R. 530.

95 See n. 66.

96 [1978] 1 AH E.R. 111.

97 [1977] F.S.R. 125.

98 [1976] R.P.C. 1.

99 Seen. 18.

1 See n. 75.

2 [1976] I.C.R. 147.

3 See n. 61.

4 See n. 31.

5 See n. 71.

6 [1979] F.S.R. 571.

7 See n. 47.

8 See n. 43.

9 This modification was not surprisingly taken up by Lord Denning in The Athletes Foot Marketing Associates Inc. v. Cobra Sports Ltd. [1980] R.P.C. 343. It was reaffirmed, although not applied, by the House of Lords in Potter v. N.U.J.

10 [1980] I.R.L.R. 404.

11 The suggestion that under the Cyanamid principles interlocutory injunctions would be more readily granted than previously does not seem to be borne out by a study of the cases. Certainly Prescott's prediction of almost invariable success for holders of patents in their applications for interlocutory injunctions (see n. 3) has not been fulfilled.