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.
Interlocutory injunction granted restraining landlord from obstructing concourse
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants interlocutory injunction pending full trial of the action seeking a permanent injunction, on the grounds that: (a) there was a fair case to be tried as to whether there was an implied easement by the common intention of the parties; (b) the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the interlocutory injunction where damages would not be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff; and (c) the plaintiff's limited means were not fatal to its application as a court should be reluctant to allow the relative financial strength of one party to override every other factor in an otherwise strong case.
Application for interlocutory injunction - underlying proceedings seeking permanent injunction - plaintiff trades as Read's and rents premises from the defendant - premises is a unit in a building being redeveloped by defendant for which it has planning permission - plaintiff has four further years on lease - building work has obstructed the concourse leading from the premises to the street - obstruction is permanent as new building will be on the concourse - plaintiff has occupied three different premises over a number of years all on the same street - plaintiff's marketing slogan is 'Read's of Nassau St' - plaintiff claims that access from Nassau St is an implied easement and relies on principle of non-derogation from grant - defendant says it is entitled to build on its premises and lease states that the premises is on a different street, from which it is also accessible - plaintiff's contention that damages would be insufficient to compensate it as what it seeks is protection of its property rights and not compensation - whether there was a fair issues to be tried - whether an award of damages would be sufficient to compensate the plaintiff such that an interlocutory injunction was not necessary - whether plaintiff had sufficient means to meet its undertaking as to damages.
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.
