Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

497)..."

35. The House of Lords, in REDLAND BRICKS LTD., v. MORRIS [1970 AC 662 (HL)], had an occasion to consider the general principles on which mandatory injunction is issued. Lord Upjohn, discussing the aspect at page 665 of the reported case and recalling the general principles, has observed:

"... The grant of a mandatory injunction is, of course, entirely discretionary and unlike a negative injunction can never be 'as of course'. Every case must depend essentially upon its own particular circumstances. Any general principles for its application can only be laid down in the most general terms:

3. Unlike the case where a negative injunction is granted to prevent the continuance of recurrence of a wrongful act, the question of the cost to the defendant to do works to prevent or lessen the likelihood of a future apprehended wrong must be an element to be taken into account;

(a) Where the defendant has acted without regard to his neighbour's rights or has tried to steal a march on him or has tried to evade the jurisdiction of the Court or, to sum it up, has acted wantonly and quite unreasonably in relation to his neighbour, he may be ordered to repair his wanton and unreasonable acts by doing positive work to restore the status quo even if the expense to him is out of all proportion to the advantage thereby accruing to the plaintiff. As illustrative of this, see Woodhouse v.

43. From the aforesaid decisions, the law in respect of mandatory injunction could be summarized as under:-

The grant of a mandatory injunction is, of course, entirely discretionary and unlike a negative injunction can never be 'as of course'. 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. Where the defendant has acted without regard to his neighbour's rights or has tried to steal a march on him or has tried to evade the jurisdiction of the Court or, to sum it up, has acted wantonly and quite unreasonably in relation to his neighbour, he may be ordered to repair his wanton and unreasonable acts by doing positive work to restore the status quo even if the expense to him is out of all proportion to the advantage thereby accruing to the plaintiff.