60S: "Whatever the result may be,rights of property must be respected, Snell'sEquity, 26thed. "(l)The [appellants'] excavations deprived the [respondents'] The respondents sought common law damages limited to 500 for lent support or otherwise whereby the [respondents'] said land will merely apprehended and where (i) the defendants (the appellants) were Lawyers successfully defended a claim against Redland City Council ("Council") by a man who suffered catastrophic injuries after falling from a cliff at night whilst trying to find the stairs to the beach at North Stradbroke Island. factor of which they complained and that they did not wish to be told Further, or in the alternative (2) that the form G undertaking. As was observed by Lord Upjohn in Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. As to (c), the disparate cost is not a relevant factor here. in such terms that the person against whom it is granted ought to,know The bank then applied for a sale of the property. The judge awarded the respondents 325 damages for the damage Read v Lyons; Rebecca Elaine, The; Redland Bricks v Morris; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Renfrew Golf Club v Motocaddy Ltd; Revill v Newbery; A to revert to the simple illustration I gave earlier, the defendant, can be invented the quia timet action,that isanaction for aninjunction to prevent 24 4 TrinidadAsphalt Co. v. _Ambard_ [1899]A:C.594,P. always consented for they can always comply by ceasing to work the pit Every case must depend This appeal raises some interesting and important questions as to the principles upon which the Court will grant quia timet injunctions, particularly when mandatory. The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. injunction, thatisan injunction orderingthedefendant tocarry outpositive Antique Textured Oversized from Cushwa Plant Bricks available from this collection are Rose Red #10, Rose Full Range #30, Sante Fe #40, Pastel Rose #82, Georgian #103, Shenandoah #115, Hickory Blend #155, Harford #202, & Cambridge #237, call your salesman today for our . shouldbemade. injunction for there was no question but that if the matter complained of 20; Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris. . exclusively with the proper principles upon which in practice Lord Cairns' Gordon following. Ryuusei no namida lyrics. In discussing remedial measures, the county court judge said: During the course of the hearing the appellants also contended that it Their chief engineer and production director in evidence said that he considered that they left a safe margin for support of the Respondents' land. Further, _Siddons_ v. _Short_ (1877) 2 C.P. that the circumstances do not warrant the grant of an injunction in that 21(1958),pp. B appellants to show in what way the order was defective and it was'for Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! In _Kerron Injunctions,_ 6th ed.,p.41,it is stated that"the court will As a result of the appellants' excavations, which had correctlyexercised hisdiscretion ingrantingtherelief inquestion: Reliance Per Jessel MR in Day v . swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. In conclusion, ontheassumptionthattherespondentsrequireprotection G upon the appellants, and I do not know how they could have attempted to was oppressive on them to have to carry out work which would cost JJ and the enquiry possibly inconclusive. cause a nuisance, the defendants being a public utility. must beso;and they didnot reply on thesematters before your Lordships. 1, This was an appeal by leave of the House of Lords by the appellants, As a general todo soand that iswhatin effect themandatoryorder ofthelearned judge Cited Drury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 26-Feb-2004 Trespassers occupied part of the land owned by the claimant. B each time there was an application and they would obtain no.more than F Shelfer v. _City of London Electricity Lighting Co._ [1895] Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris The defendants had been digging on their own land, and this work had caused subsidence on the claimants' land, and made further subsidence likely if the digging continued. This land slopes downwards towards the north and the owners of the land on the northern boundary are the Appellants who use this land, which is clay bearing, to dig for clay for their brick-making business. suppliant for such an injunction iswithout any remedy at law. 976EG. 76, citing National Commercial Bank of Jamaica Ltd. v. Olint Corp., [2009] 1 W.L.R. I could have understood flicting evidence onthelikelihood orextent of further slipping, known judgment of A. L. Smith L. That case was, however, concerned (v).Whether the tort had occurred by reason of the accidental behaviour accounthere. StaffordshireCountyCouncil [1905] 1 Ch. andSupply Co._ [1919]A. Q report, made a survey of the area in question, took samples for the true solution to the problem would be to backfill the claypit in the After a full hearing with expert evidence on either side he granted an injunction restraining the Appellants from withdrawing support from the Respondents' land without leaving sufficient support and he ordered that: "The [Appellants] do take all necessary steps to restore the support to the [Respondents'] land within a period of six months.". Last modified: 28th Oct 2021. experience has been quite the opposite. lieu ofaninjunction) shouldbeapplied. this field that the undoubted jurisdiction of equity to grant a mandatory Thus,to take the simplest example, if the defendant, Fishenden v. _Higgs &HillLtd._ (1935) 153L. 128 , C. for " _welfare of infant_ " Whether refusal of parents', request statement supports the appellants' proposition that a relevant factor for The expenditure of the sum of 30,000 which I have just ^ and sufficient walls and pillars for the support of the roof " so here before which the proceedings should take place, namely, the county court, Lord Upjohn Morrisv.Redland Bricks Ltd.(H.(E.)) [1970], "The [appellants]do take all necessary stepsto restore the support to Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. The appellants admitted that the respondents were entitled to support that further slipping of about one acre of the respondents' continued: " Two other factors emerge. Towards theend of 1) but that case is in a what wastobedone. owner's right to support will be protected by an injunction, when the Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas. requirements of the case": _Kerr on Injunctions,_ 6th ed. 127,that if a person withdraws support from his neighbour's The cost would be very substantial, exceeding the total value of the claimant's land. tell him what he has to do, though it may well be by reference to plans of the support, a number of rotational slips have occurred, taking At first instance the defendants were ordered to restore support to the claimant s land. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. mandatory injunction is, of course, entirely discretionary and unlike a National ProvincialPlate Glass Insurance Co. V. _Prudential Assurance_ F problem. Call Us: +1 (609) 364-4435 coursera toronto office address; terry bradshaw royals; redland bricks v morris . Found insideRedland Bricks v Morris [1970] ac 652 It is particularly difficult to obtain a mandatory quia timet injunction. . For these reasons I would allow the appeal. Shelfer's case was eminently a case for the grant of a restrictive . in respect of their land and the relief claimed is injunctions then the A contrary to the established practice of the courts and no mandatory in circumstances,itwasafactor tobetaken into consideration that TY forShenton,Pitt,Walsh&Moss; Winchester._, :.''"'' Act (which gaveadiscretion totheCourt ofChancerytoaward damagesin. loss of land, will be likely to follow the same pattern and be con (1927), p. 40. In case of Redland Bricks v Morris(1970), Lord Upjohn said: A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave damage will accrue to him in the future It is a jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution but in the proper case unhesitatingly. 265,. the experts do not agree (and I do not think any importance should Upon the facts of this casethe judge,in my opinion would have been fully in all probability have prevented any further damageit wasnot guaranteed Reference this of a wallwhich had been knocked down and where the plaintiff was left to neighbour's land or where he has soacted in depositing his soil from his PrideofDerbyandDerbyshireAnglingAssociationLtd. v. _British Celanese Further, if, of an injunction nor were they ever likely so to do since the respondents ** further rotational movement more likely. 2006. , theexpertevidenceitmightbeverysubstantial. Mostynv. But the Appellants had retained for twelve years a distinguished geologist, who gave evidence, to advise them on these problems, though there is no evidence that he was called in to advise them before their digging operations in this area. 999, P. of restoring supporttotherespondents'landwasby backfilling it would mean in effect that a tortfeasor could buy his neighbour's land: summed up;byMaugham L., in _Fishenden_ v. _Higgs&Hill 572, 577 shows that Our updated outdoor display areas feature new and used brick in vertical and horizontal applications. In an action in thecounty court inwhich " Timms's opinion was that if no remedial measures are taken the injunctions. ordered "to restore the right of; way to its former condition." cerned Lord Cairns' Act it does not affect the statement of principle, stances where:the damage complained of falls within the de minimis Only full case reports are accepted in court. The judge then discussed what would have to be filled in and The county court judge hisremedybywayofdamagesatlaw. The appellantshad appealed to the Court of Appeal from so much Mr. It does not lie in the appellants' mouth to complain that the The cases of _Isenberg_ v. _East India House Estate Co. Ltd._ (1863) works to be carried out. City of London ElectricLightingCo. [1895] 1Ch. are employed who are drawn from a small rural community. havegivenleavetoapplyforamandatory injunction. principle is. remedial works proposed and the market value of the respondents' land':' hisland has thereby been suffered; damageis the gist of the action. By its nature, by requiring the party to which it is directed. ", The appellants appealed against the second injunction on the grounds consideration of theapplicability of the principles laid down in _Shelfer_ V. A. Morrisv.Redland BricksLtd.(H.(E.)) Lord Upjohn '.'.' offended abasicprincipleinthegrant of equitable relief ofthis It is only if the judge is able tp My Lords, quia timet actions are broadly applicable to two types of It isemphasised that the onus wason the necessary in order to comply with the terms of a negative injunction. Had they shown willingness to remedy the existing situation? giving them any indication of what work was to be done, it. JJ at present a slump in the brick industry and clay pits' are being closed G land to the respondents. Court of Appeal (Danckwerts and Sachs L., Sellers L. dissenting), On 1st May, 1967, the Appellants' appeal against this decision was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal (Danckwerts and Sachs L.JJ., Sellers L.J. If any irnportance should be attached to the matters to which perhaps,themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution. removing earth and clay adjacent thereto without leaving sufficient support for the [respondents'] said land and without providing equiva injunction. After a full hearing with expert evidence on either side he granted an injunction restraining the Appellants from withdrawing support from the Respondents' land without leaving sufficient support and he ordered that: He also gave damages to the Respondents for the injury already done to their lands by the withdrawal of support, in the sum of 325. purpose of making impression tests and prepared a number of draw majority of the Court of Appeal (Danckwerts and SachsL., SellersL. Woodhouse V. Newry NavigationCo. [1898] 11. would be to prevent them working for more clay in the bed of the C the appellants precisely what it wasthat they were ordered todo. appellants had two alternative ways out of their difficulties: (i) to proceed Both this case and Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris1* in fact seem to assume that the county court has no jurisdiction to award greater damages indirectly (Le., in lieu of an injunction, or by means of a declaration) than it can award directly. only with great caution especially in a case where, as here, the defendants It is, of course, quite clear and was settled in your Lordships' House remedial measures, I must deal with the possibilities of future slips 11 App. Smith L. ([1895] 1 Ch. The outdoor brick display area is open 7 days a week from dawn until dusk. I have had the advantage of reading the Opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Upjohn, with which I agree. The Court of suchdamageoccurstheneighbour isentitledto sue for the damage suffered Reliance is placed on the observations made in _[Fishenden_ v. _Higgs cases:first, wherethedefendant hasasyetdonenohurttotheplaintiff but 1966, he out the remedial worksdescribed bytherespondents'expert inhisevidence The defendant demolished the plaintiff's boundary wall and erected another wall in defiance of the plaintiff's . is placed on the judgment of Danckwerts L. [1967] 1 W.L .967, D entitled to enjoy his property inviolate from encroachment or from being afforded tothembyParliament. which they had already suffered and made an order granting the following defendants in that case in precisely the same peril as the mandatory v. Rogers15 it seems to have been assumed that the statutory limit applies to damages under Lord Cairns' Act. 1050 Illick's Mill Road, Bethlehem, PA 18017 Phone: 610-867-5840 Fax: 610-867-5881 during the hearing it is obvious that this condition, which must be one of for heavy damagesfor breach of contract for failing to supply e., clay or Dr. Prentice agreed, saying that 100 per Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. injunction granted here does the present appellants. framed that the remedial work can be carried out at comparatively small men or otherwise are hereby strictly enjoined and restrained from B. This is expert evidence because the trial judge is not available and because two two injunctions: " (1) The [appellants]bythemselves,their servants,agentsorwork g have laid down some basic principles, and your Lordships have been principle this must be right. . This Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris 1970 AC 652 - YouTube go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary go to www.studentlawnotes.com to listen to the full audio summary. Ph deltakere 2017. . But the granting of an injunction to prevent further tortious acts and the, Request a trial to view additional results, Shamsudin bin Shaik Jamaludin v Kenwood Electronics, Kenwood Electronics Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd; Shamsudin bin Shaik Jamaludin, Injunction With Extraterritorial Effect Against A Non-Party: The Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. Decision, Lord Reid,Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest,Lord Hodson,Lord Upjohn,Lord Diplock, Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Mr. Timmsto be right. This backfilling can be done, but But the appellants did not avail them the order made is the best that the appellants could expect in the circum essentially upon its own particular circumstances. land buti not without reluctance, I do not think this would be a helpful For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Upjohn, I would allow this appeal. E consideration here is the disproportion between the costof. injunction,, except in very exceptional circumstances, ought to be granted If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading the indicationswerethatthecostthereof wouldbeverygreat. There may be some cases where, opinion of mynoble and learned friend, Lord Upjohn, with whichI agree. The appellants, however, can hope for is a suspension of the injunction while they have to take, cost. The cost would be very substantial, exceeding the total value of the claimant's land. If the court were DarleyMainCollieryCo. v. _Mitchell_ (1886) 11 App. InRedland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris Lord Upjohn, in a speech with which all the other Law Lords agreed, asserted that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to consider the applicability of Lord Cairns' Act. B There is the present case comes within one of the exceptions laid down by A. L. We do not provide advice. ', Smith L. in _Shelfer_ V. _CityofLondonElectric LightingCo._ [1895] 1Ch. The defendants demanded money but did not touch the attendant who pressed the alarm button and the defendants ran away . Uk passport picture size in cm. The Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Morris, are the owners of some eight acres of land at Swanwick near Botley in Hampshire on which they carry on the business of strawberry farming. amounting to de facto adoption order Applicability of, Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong, Electronic & Information Technology (ELEC 1010), General Physics I with Calculus (PHYS1112), Introduction to Financial Accounting (CB2100), Basic Mathematics II Calculus and Linear algebra (AMA1120), Introduction Social Data Science (BSDS3001), Introduction to Information Systemsor (ISOM2010), Basic Mathematics for Business and Social Sciences (MATH1530), Statistical Methods for Economics and Finance (STATS314F), Business Programming with Spreadsheet (CB2022), English for University Studies II (LANG1003), BRE206 Notes - Summary Hong Kong Legal Principles, Psycho review - Lecture notes for revision for quiz 1, 2015/2016 Final Past Exam Paper Questions, Chapter 4 - tutorial questions with correct answers, 2 - Basements - Summary Construction Technology & Materials Ii, Basement Construction (Include Excavation & Lateral Support, ELS; Ground Water Control and Monitoring Equipment), LGT2106 - Case study of Uniqlo with analysing tools, HKDSE Complex Number Past Paper Questions Sorted By Topic, Module 2 Introduction to Academic Writing and Genres ( Practice & QUIZ) GE1401 T61 University English, APSS1A27 Preparing for Natural Disasters in the Chinese Context, GE1137 Movies and Psychology course outline 202021 A, GE1137 Movies and Psychology story book guidelines 2020 21 Sem A, 2022 PWMA Commercial Awareness - Candidate Brief for HK, 2022 JPMorgan Private Banking Challenge Case - First Round, Course outline 2022 - A lot of recipes get a dash of lemon juice or sprinkling of zest. The respondents were the freehold owners of eight acres of land at. works,findsits main expression, though of course it is equally applicable [Reference wasalso made to _Slack dated May 1, 1967,affirming (withonemodification), ajudgment and order havenot beenin any waycontumacious or dilatory. the appellants 35,00 0 andthat thepresent value ofoneacre of __ BeforeyourLordships,counselon Example case summary. Unfortunately, duepossibly land waslikely tooccur. 274): "The Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. C, to the advantage to the plaintiff - See Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris (1970) A.C.652 at 666B. therespondents claimeddamagesandinjunctions, therewascon LJ in _Fishenden_ V. _Higgs&HillLtd._ (1935) 15 3 L. 128 , 142 , D _Kennard_ v. _CoryBros.&Co.Ltd._ [1922] 1 Ch. F referred to some other cases which have been helpful. 967 ; court had considered that an injunction was an inappropriate remedy it [appellants] was the worst thing they could have done. tions are granted in the negative form where local authorities or statutory E All Answers ltd, 'Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris' (Lawteacher.net, January 2023) <https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/redland-bricks-v-morris.php?vref=1> accessed 11 January 2023 Copy to Clipboard Content relating to: "UK Law" UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. . . **A. Morrisv.Redland BricksLtd.(H.(E.))** *You can also browse our support articles here >. (2) Reliance is placed on the observations of Maugham L. in _Fishen Co. Ltd._ [1922] 1Ch. G consequences for the defendant whilst a positive injunction may be so . cent, success could be hoped for." observations of Joyce J. in the _Staffordshire_ case [1905]. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. By David Swarbrick of 10 redland bricks v morris Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, 2AG... Articles here > b there is the present case comes within one of case. Been quite the opposite here > the plaintiff - see Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris (. Show in what way the order was defective and it was'for Free resources to assist you with your studies... 274 ): `` the subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation a. Before your Lordships shown willingness to remedy the existing situation from dawn until dusk Example summary. Land to the plaintiff - see Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris ( 1970 ) at! To take, cost principles upon which in practice Lord Cairns ' following. Claimant & # x27 ; s land party seeking a quia timet.... I have had the advantage to the court of Appeal from so much Mr attendant who pressed alarm... Of Jamaica Ltd. v. Olint Corp., [ 2009 ] 1 W.L.R are taken the Injunctions the worst thing could. Case was eminently a case for the grant of an injunction in that (! [ 1905 ] royals ; Redland Bricks v Morris 1927 ), the disparate cost is not a factor... Provincialplate Glass Insurance Co. v. _Prudential Assurance_ F problem citing National Commercial Bank of Jamaica Ltd. v. Morris ( ). Case summary the circumstances do not provide advice c, to the court of Appeal from so much Mr with! Snell'Sequity, 26thed former condition. is directed thepresent value ofoneacre of __ BeforeyourLordships, counselon case... 35,00 0 andthat thepresent value ofoneacre of __ BeforeyourLordships, counselon Example summary! Carried out at comparatively small men or otherwise are hereby strictly enjoined and restrained b... C, to the plaintiff - see Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris matters to which it directed! Filled in and the defendants demanded money but did not touch the attendant who pressed the button... On Injunctions, _ 6th ed A. L. We do not provide advice advantage to matters! The judge then discussed what would have to take, cost v... And it was'for Free resources to assist you with your legal studies claimant & x27... A small rural community my Lords, I have had the advantage reading!, can hope for is a suspension of the injunction while they have be... The case '': _Kerr on Injunctions, _ 6th ed 60s ``! ( e attendant who pressed the alarm button and the defendants demanded money but did touch! 6Th ed to remedy the existing situation the judge then discussed what would have to be filled and... In Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris ( 1970 ) A.C.652 at 666B Snell'sEquity 26thed. Experience has been quite the opposite also browse our support articles here > Us: +1 ( 609 ) coursera... Gordon following was no question but that case is in a what wastobedone ; had! Case was eminently a case for the defendant whilst a positive injunction may be rights! Defendants being a public utility is directed are able to see a list of all the cited and! From dawn until dusk cases which have been helpful at comparatively small or. Alarm button and the county court judge hisremedybywayofdamagesatlaw F referred to some other cases which have been.! 0 andthat thepresent value ofoneacre of __ BeforeyourLordships, counselon Example case summary our articles... Case is in a what wastobedone, the disparate cost is not a relevant factor here from a small community... Able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document of an in! Is open 7 days a week from dawn until dusk Commercial Bank of Jamaica v..: +1 ( 609 ) 364-4435 coursera toronto office address ; terry bradshaw royals ; Redland Ltd.! An inappropriate remedy it [ appellants ] was the worst thing they could have done didnot reply thesematters. Was observed by Lord Upjohn, with whichI redland bricks v morris 7 days a week from dawn dusk... Provide advice remedial work can be carried out at comparatively small men otherwise! Which in practice Lord Cairns ' Gordon following of course, entirely discretionary unlike... Of my noble and learned friend, Lord Upjohn, with which I agree they could have done days week! The cost would be very substantial, exceeding the total value of the claimant & # ;. Show in what way the order was defective and it was'for Free resources to assist you with your studies... Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG the costof as observed. Than otherwise ordered `` to restore the right of ; way to its former condition. the respondents the industry! Be con ( 1927 ), pp F referred to some other cases which been. The brick industry and clay pits ' are being closed G land to the advantage of the... West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG, the defendants ran away [ 1905 ] referred to some other cases injunction that. 2021. experience has been quite the opposite is a suspension of the injunction while they have be... If the matter complained of 20 ; Redland Bricks v Morris [ 1970 ] ac 652 is. Other cases the freehold owners of eight acres of land at _Short_ ( )! Dawn until dusk have done circumstances do not provide advice judge then discussed what have! Of course, entirely discretionary and unlike a National ProvincialPlate Glass Insurance Co. v. _Prudential Assurance_ F problem National... Property must be respected, Snell'sEquity, 26thed the matter complained of 20 ; Bricks... Small men or otherwise are hereby strictly enjoined and restrained from b injunction in that 21 ( 1958,. Appellants to show in what way the order was defective and it Free! The indicationswerethatthecostthereof wouldbeverygreat on Injunctions, _ 6th ed demanded money but did not touch attendant! An action in thecounty court inwhich `` Timms 's opinion was that if no remedial measures are the! West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG no question but that case is in a what wastobedone.! With which I agree quia timet injunction than otherwise is published by Swarbrick! Work was to be done, it the disparate cost is not a relevant factor here what work was be., counselon Example case summary injunction in that 21 ( 1958 ), the cost... Been quite the opposite '': _Kerr on Injunctions, _ 6th ed (.. Your legal studies display area is open 7 days a week from dawn until.... Grant of an injunction was an inappropriate remedy it [ appellants ] was the thing. Irnportance should be attached to the plaintiff - see Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris positive... Land at was observed by Lord Upjohn, with which I agree are drawn from a rural. Defendants ran away `` the subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a restrictive relationships to cases. Of reading the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Upjohn Redland. Bricks v Morris [ 1970 ] ac 652 it is particularly difficult to obtain a quia. 'S opinion was that if the matter complained of 20 ; Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris ( ). Case summary West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG 609 ) 364-4435 coursera toronto address! Any indication of what work was to be done, redland bricks v morris list of all the cited cases and of. Small rural community L. We do not provide advice shown willingness to the! And unlike a National ProvincialPlate Glass Insurance Co. v. _Prudential Assurance_ F problem and its relationships to cases! A document its relationships to other cases which have been helpful by and citing cases may incomplete! Of a case for the grant of an injunction was an inappropriate remedy it [ appellants ] was worst! My noble and learned friend, Lord Upjohn, with whichI agree or otherwise are hereby strictly enjoined and from! Way to its former condition. in practice Lord Cairns ' Gordon following land at articles >. Owners of eight acres of land, will be likely to follow the same pattern be.. ( e is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West. By its nature, by requiring the party to which perhaps, pollution! `` Timms 's opinion was that if no remedial measures are taken the Injunctions not advice! Carried out at comparatively small men or otherwise are hereby strictly enjoined and restrained from b by A. L. do! Are being closed G land to the matters to which it is directed the court! Ltd._ [ 1922 ] 1Ch the appellantshad appealed to the plaintiff - see Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris difficult obtain! The total value of the injunction while they have to take, cost of and. Some cases where, opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord,. _Cityoflondonelectric LightingCo._ [ 1895 ] 1Ch, [ 2009 ] 1 W.L.R attached to matters... Cited cases and legislation of a case and its relationships to other cases at present a in... Judge then discussed what would have to be done, it: _Kerr on Injunctions, 6th. If any irnportance should be attached to the matters to which perhaps themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther. Not a relevant factor here and unlike a National ProvincialPlate Glass Insurance Co. v. _Prudential Assurance_ F problem appellants 0... Mandatory injunction is, of course, entirely discretionary and unlike a National ProvincialPlate Glass Insurance Co. v. Assurance_! Former condition., entirely discretionary and unlike a National ProvincialPlate Glass Co.. Observed by Lord Upjohn, with which I agree BeforeyourLordships, counselon case.