Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Court misled concerning ownership of lands when injunction sought
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the High Court, and set aside an injunction that restrained the appellant from alleged trespass on certain lands, part of a business park, pending a full trial. The original decision was overturned due to the respondent's materially misleading evidence suggesting a sale might be frustrated by the appellant's actions, when in fact the sale had already concluded. Additionally, the balance of justice was deemed to weigh against granting the injunction due to the respondent's lack of urgency in pursuing the application and the appellant's arguable case for having acquired an interest or easement over the lands in question.
interlocutory injunction, trespass, business park, adverse possession, easement, balance of justice, misleading evidence, urgency, property rights, sale of land, Court of Appeal, High Court, material non-disclosure, lease agreement, common areas, delay in proceedings, arguable defense, injunction set aside.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
