Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for FULLER,DONIA JOE

Your Search: american cyanamid

Date/Time of Request: Saturday, April 9, 20 !:" #aracas, $a %a&
#lient 'dentifier: D()'A *+$$,R
Data-ase: +./0$R
#itation Te1t: #20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/"#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/"
$ines:
Documents:
'ma8es: 0
The material accompanyin8 this summary is su-9ect to copyri8ht2 +sa8e is 8o:erned -y contract ;ith Thomson Reuters,
<est and their affiliates2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e

(ite as! "
#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/"
#i:il 0ustice 3uarterly
2004
<hither American #yanamid=: interim in9unctions in the 2st century
Andre; .eay
> 20 S;eet ? @a1;ell and its #ontri-utors
Su#$e%t! #i:il procedure
&eywor's! 'nterim in9unctionsA 0udicial decision maBin8
Le(islatio) %ite'! #i:il %rocedure Rules 99C 6S' 99C 5527
Duman Ri8hts Act 99C s2E, s22657
,uropean #on:ention on Duman Ri8hts 9"0 Art20
ases %ite'! R2 : Secretary of State for Transport ,1 p2 *actortame $td 6)o27 F990G 2 A2#2 C" 6D$7
American #yanamid #o : ,thicon $td 6)o27 F9!"G A2#2 59E 6D$7
Series " Soft;are $td : #larBe F99EG All ,2R2 C"5 6#h D7
*+,- '2 'ntroduction
'nterim in9unctions are re8ularly sou8ht in courts in this country,2 9ust as they are in many 9urisdictions around the
;orld2 The 8oal of o-tainin8 an interim in9unction is to ensure that the status quo is maintained and that there is no
permanent harm done to the ri8hts of the applicant -efore the applicantHs su-stanti:e action a8ainst the respondent
can -e determined finally -y a court hearin825 To this end in9unctions are 8ranted to ensure the effecti:e
administration of 9ustice, namely ri8hts that the courts ha:e a duty to protect can -e fairly determined and
protected24 't is necessary, as in any claim for equita-le relief, for the applicant to -e a-le to demonstrate that the
a;ardin8 of dama8es at the hearin8 of the su-stanti:e action ;ill not pro:ide an adequate remedy in the
circumstances2 The la;, as it does ;ith any interim remedy, seeBs to:
IF(G-tain a satisfactory -alance -et;een, on the one hand, the need to reduce the risB of harm to la;ful ri8hts
pendin8 liti8ation and, on the other hand, the imperati:e of impartiality ;hich ar8ues for noninterference prior to
final 9ud8ment2J"
*+,, The courts endea:our to striBe the correct -alance in decidin8 ;hether to e1ercise the Iimmense po;erJE of
a;ardin8 an in9unction in the midst of uncertainty as it is usually impossi-le for the courts to Bno; prior to the final
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 2

(ite as! "
hearin8 ;hich party to the liti8ation is ri8ht and deser:in8 of relief,! if any at all2 #ritically, the issue of ;hether an
in9unction should or should not -e 8ranted is a matter for the discretion of the 9ud8e hearin8 the in9unction
application2 Kut as ;e ;ill see, there are principles or 8uidelines that ha:e -een laid do;n for 9ud8es ;hen they are
en8a8ed in e1ercisin8 their discretion2
There are a num-er of pro-lems that -eset a hearin8 for an interim in9unction2 *irst, there is usually no oral e:idence
and no opportunity for cross/e1amination, and disco:ery and inspection of documents has not taBen place and
sometimes no statement of claim or defence ha:e -een ser:ed,C so that the 9ud8e does not ha:e -efore him or her, in
many instances, the full story, or at least a tested full story2 Secondly, a 9ud8e hearin8 an application for an interim
in9unction cannot de:ote the same time to it as the trial 9ud8e is a-le ;hen the case is finally heard in full2 Thirdly,
the fact of the matter is that the 8rantin8 of an interim in9unction ;ill, in some cases, effecti:ely dispose of the
matter9 and so a 9ud8e must ensure that adequate attention is 8i:en to all aspects of the application2
+ndou-tedly, the 8reatest influence on applications for interim in9unctions in ,n8land and other common la;
9urisdictions, such as Australia0 and 'reland, has -een the speech of $ord DiplocB in the 9!" case of American
Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd (American Cyanamid),2 a case referred to as the leadin8 authority on interim
in9unctions in editions of the <hite KooB su-sequent to the decision of the Douse of $ords25 The speech of $ord
DiplocB has in:aria-ly -een cited in 9ud8ments deli:ered on applications for interim in9unctions2 Some hailed the
speech as re:olutionary,4 ;hile others ha:e seen it as circumscri-in8 the discretion of 9ud8es2 The speech of $ord
DiplocB ;as intended to -rin8 some order to the ad hoc decision/maBin8 that had -een 8oin8 on ;ith applications
for in9unctions for many years prior to 9!"2 The aim of this article is to e:aluate the role of the case in the early
2st century2 *irst, the article sBetches the position in ,n8lish la; -efore $ord *+,. DiplocBHs speech, and then, in
%t ''', -riefly discusses the principles that $ord DiplocB purported to lay do;n in American Cyanamid. %art 'L
considers the aftermath of the case2 %art L e1amines the case of Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke," decided near to
the end of the last century, and ;hich ar8ua-ly re/defined the principles laid do;n in American Cyanamid. %art L'
discusses recent de:elopments and ho; American Cyanamid is :ie;ed today2 The final part offers some concludin8
remarBs2
''2 The -acBdrop to American Cyanamid
'n9unctions ha:e -een 8ranted for many years, and re8arded as an element of the ori8inal office of the #ourt of
#hancery2E #hancery courts ha:e often -een in a quandary ;hen faced ;ith an in9unction application2 'f they
failed to 8rant an in9unction then the plaintiff Ms ri8hts could -e se:erely affected, perhaps permanently2 Kut they
mi8ht not -e a-le to ascertain if the plaintiff has any ri8hts that should -e protected -y an in9unction, and if they
8ranted the relief sou8ht they could -e si8nificantly pre9udicin8 the defendantHs position2 #learly early on,! and
certainly -y the mid/9th century, courts, in e1ercisin8 their discretion, had re8ard for the apparent stren8th of the
plaintiff Ms case a8ainst the defendant,C althou8h as time ;ent -y -alance of con:enience and irrepara-le in9ury
tests9 seemed to intrude ;ith the result that if a plaintiff could demonstrate that on the -alance of con:enience or
-ecause of irrepara-le in9ury he or she should -e 8ranted the relief, that could compensate for a failure to esta-lish
that on the merits the plaintiff ;as liBely to succeed ultimately220 'n due course the :arious approaches mer8ed into
a -roader test demonstratin8 8reater fle1i-ility, ;ith the plaintiff ha:in8 to esta-lish first that he or she had a prima
facie case and then the court ;ould consider the issue of dama8es and the -alance of con:enience2
't seems that cases -efore 9!" tended to focus on different issues2 Kut, the most frequently used approach to
in9unctions in the first three/quarters of the last century ;as set out in the case of offman!La "oche (#) $ Co. v
Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry2 ;here the Douse of $ords said that in order to succeed in an application
for an in9unction, the plaintiff must esta-lish that he or she had a prima facie case a8ainst the defendant222 This ;as
the position *+,/ taBen a little earlier -y the Douse of $ords in (. %. Stratford $ Son Ltd v Lindley,25 and it appears
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 5

(ite as! "
to -e a ;ell/esta-lished :ie;24 and re8arded as a practically sensi-le approach, for if the conclusion ;as reached
that the defendant ;as liBely to ;in at the final hearin8 then normally it ;ould -e un9ust to place some restraint on
the defendant up to the point of the trial, e:en if an undertaBin8 as to dama8es ;as 8i:en -y the plaintiff22" The
focus on the relati:e stren8ths of the cases of the parties led, in many cases, to a :irtual trial ;ithin a trial2 The
practice tended to mean that interim in9unction hearin8s -ecame a speedy and ine1pensi:e ;ay of testin8 the
stren8ths of the parties22E The effect ;as, as $ord Dennin8 @2R2 had said in #ellowes $ Son v #isher,2! that in 99
out of 00 cases the 9ud8eHs decision at the interim hearin8 is accepted or the case settles and no final hearin8 is
necessary22C
'''2 American Cyanamid
'n 9!" it fell to the Douse of $ords to hear an appeal in American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. As the case ;as
heard only a little ;hile after their $ordships had deli:ered a stron8 :ie; on interim in9unctions in offman!La
"oche (#) $ Co. v Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry,29 one could ha:e -een for8i:en for e1pectin8 their
$ordships to say more or less the same thin8s that had -een said in offman!La "oche. Kut that ;as not the case2
American Cyanamid represents ;hat mi8ht -e seen as a Isea/chan8eJ50 in the courtsH approach to the 8rantin8 of
interim in9unctions25
American Cyanamid has -een discussed on numerous occasions and consequently ' ;ill merely rehearse the primary
points made, and the frame;orB formulated, in the leadin8 speech deli:ered -y $ord DiplocB 6a speech that met
;ith the a8reement of the other $a; $ords72 The su-stanti:e case in:ol:ed a claim -y the plaintiff that the defendant
had infrin8ed the formerHs patent2 The plaintiff sou8ht an interim in9unction to stop infrin8ement until the hearin8 of
the claim2 'n the #ourt of Appeal52 6;here the hearin8 lasted for t;o ;eeBs7 it ;as clearly stated that the plaintiff
had to esta-lish a prima facie case -efore *+,0 any other issues, such as the -alance of con:enience, ;ere
considered255 The $ord 0ustices considered the conflictin8 affida:it e:idence and came to the :ie; that the plaintiff
had not done so2 At first instance Nraham 02 had adopted the same approach, -ut had come to the opposite :ie;254
$ord DiplocB ;as concerned that any decision at the interim sta8e ;as -ased, necessarily, on affida:it e:idence
alone and ;as not tested -y oral cross/e1amination2 TaBin8 the approach of the #ourt of Appeal ;ould mean,
accordin8 to his $ordship, that the courtHs discretion ;ould -e clo88ed -y a technical rule, i.e., the need to pro:e a
prima facie case25" Dis $ordship opined that all a plaintiff had to esta-lish -efore a court considered the -alance of
con:enience ;as that the claim ;as not fri:olous or :e1atious, namely that there ;as a serious question to -e tried2
$ord DiplocB said that it ;as not the courtHs function to resol:e conflicts in the e:idence or decide difficult questions
of la; that in:ol:ed detailed ar8ument and considera-le deli-eration25E (nce a plaintiff could esta-lish that there
;as a serious question to -e tried, the court had to mo:e on to e1amine ;hether, if the plaintiff ;ere to succeed
ultimately, he or she ;ould -e adequately compensated -y an a;ard of dama8es2 'f the ans;er ;ere in the
affirmati:e, and the defendant ;as in a financial position to pay the dama8esH a;ard, the plaintiff ;ould not -e
8ranted an in9unction2 Do;e:er, ;here the ans;er to the dama8esH question ;as in the ne8ati:e, the court ;as to
consider, if the defendant ;ere to succeed ultimately, ;hether he or she ;ould -e adequately compensated under the
plaintiff Ms undertaBin8 to pay dama8es2 'f the defendant could -e compensated and the plaintiff ;as in a financial
position to pay, the court had no reason to refrain from 8rantin8 an in9unction25!
Accordin8 to $ord DiplocB it is ;here there is dou-t as to the adequacy of dama8es to either of the parties in the
scheme of thin8s outlined in the last para8raph, that a court must consider the -alance of con:enience2 Dis $ordship
said that it ;as not ;ise to enumerate the matters that could -e taBen into account in determinin8 ;here the -alance
lies, as they ;ould :ary from case to case25C @any special factors mi8ht -e taBen into account in the particular
circumstances of indi:idual cases259 Dis $ordship e:en said that:
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 4

(ite as! "
IF'Gf the uncompensata-le disad:anta8e to each party ;ould not differ ;idely, it may not -e improper to taBe into
account in tippin8 the -alance *+,1 the relati:e stren8th of each partyHs case as re:ealed -y the affida:it e:idence
OJ40
Kut consideration of the merits of the partiesH cases ;as only to -e seen as a matter of last resort as it should only
taBe place ;here:
IF'Gt is apparent upon the facts disclosed -y the e:idence as to ;hich there is no credi-le dispute that the stren8th of
one partyHs case is disproportionate to that of the other party2J4
#learly, the central issue for $ord DiplocB ;as the -alance of con:enience2 This ;as not a ne; concept in in9unction
applications2 *or e1ample, in 9E" in (. %. Stratford $ Son Ltd v Lindley,42 the Douse had reco8nised its rele:ance2
'n the #ourt of Appeal in American Cyanamid45 it ;as said that the -alance of con:enience should -e taBen into
account if the plaintiff can pro:e that he or she had a prima facie case2 The #ourt of Appeal did not thinB that a
prima facie case had -een made out, therefore there ;as no requirement to looB at the -alance of con:enience2
The position e1pounded -y $ord DiplocB is certainly consistent ;ith the policy -ehind interim proceedin8s, namely
not to determine ;ho is in the ri8ht and ;ho should succeed, -ut to maintain a -alance so that there is a matter to -e
tried at a later date,44 -ut many ha:e questioned ;hether it ;as a practica-le position to taBe2
'L2 The aftermath of American Cyanamid
There has -een considera-le criticism of the approach propounded -y $ord DiplocB24" Some 9ud8es, such as Sir
0ohn %ennycuicB in #ellowes $ Son v #isher,4E clearly stated that they felt that the old approach had ;orBed ;ell,
and others, such as @e8a; $202 in Alfred )'nhill Ltd v S'no*tics,4! e1pressed some difficulty in applyin8 the ne;
approach, particularly ;here there ;as a lar8e :olume of affida:it e:idence2
There ha:e -een se:eral different Binds of responses to the case2 @any 9ud8es, such as RosBill and Kro;ne $2002 in
Alfred )'nhill Ltd v S'no*tics,4C ha:e clearly indicated that they are -ound -y ;hat $ord DiplocB said, and ha:e
applied the process outlined -y his $ordship in determinin8 the case2 (ther courts, ;hile not denyin8 the principles
in American Cyanamid, ha:e indicated *+,2 that there are some cases ;here 9ustice and the needs of the parties
dictate a fuller hearin8 consistent ;ith the practice pre/American Cyanamid.49
Some 9ud8es, and $ord Dennin8 in particular,"0 ha:e sou8ht to continue to consider the merits of a case -y, in
effect, side/steppin8 American Cyanamid. They ha:e done this -y relyin8 upon the fact that $ord DiplocB said that
there mi8ht -e Imany other special factors to -e taBen into consideration in the particular circumstances of
indi:idual cases2J" $ord Dennin8 sa; Ispecial factorsJ as constitutin8 an issue that ;as separate from the -alance
of con:enience issue, and so he felt that he ;as a-le to taBe into account the stren8th of the partiesH cases in comin8
to his decision, as it ;as a special factor2 Kut Stamp $202 in '++ard v ,os*er"2 did not appro:e of this approach as
he felt that $ord DiplocB ;as referrin8 to special factors that affected the -alance of con:enience issue and not to
special factors that permitted a court to i8nore the principles that his $ordship had laid do;n2 Do;e:er, e:en 8i:en
the interpretation of Stamp $202, ;hich appears to -e correct, Kro;ne $202 in #ellowes $ Son v #isher"5 e1pressed
the :ie; that he did not Bno; ho; a court could fairly or reasona-ly consider the -alance of con:enience ;ithout
taBin8 some account of the relati:e stren8th of the partiesH cases2"4
Since American Cyanamid there ha:e -een countless cases ;here the courts ha:e effecti:ely created e1ceptions to
the case, either e1pressly or impliedly2 An e1ample is pro:ided -y -.L Ltd v .oods,"" ;here the Douse of $ords
reco8nised that determination at the interim le:el ;ould -e decisi:e and the matter ;ould not 8o to a final
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e "

(ite as! "
hearin82"E (ther instances of e1ceptions are proceedin8s concernin8"! : the ri8ht to pu-lish an article or the
transmission of a tele:ision pro8ramme and ;here time is all important"C A applications for mandatory in9unctions"9
A applications for in9unctions to restrain the presentation of a ;indin8/up petitionE0 A clear fraudE A undisputed
factE2 A and industrial disputes2E5 Returnin8 to the e1ception in -.L Ltd v .oods, it is nota-le that $ord DiplocB
himself appeared in that case to reco8nise the limits of ;hat he *+,3 had pronounced in American Cyanamid, for he
indicated that ;here an interim hearin8 ;as 8oin8 to -e decisi:e, the criteria that he had set out in American
Cyanamid ;as not appropriate2E4 The pro-lem ;ith his $ordshipHs approach, and that of a num-er of other
9ud8es,E" is that many cases, if not most 68i:en ;hat the 9ud8es themsel:es ha:e said, and, therefore, pro:idin8
reasona-ly accurate empirical data, one ;ould thinB7 are resol:ed -y a decision on an application for an interim
in9unction2 *or instance, and as mentioned earlier, $ord Dennin8 @2R2 in #ellowes $ Son v #isher said that after a
decision on an interim in9unction application the matter 8oes no further in 99 out of 00 cases2EE 'n fact, it mi8ht -e
ar8ued that proceedin8s in American Cyanamid itself mi8ht ;ell ha:e -een settled -y the decision to 8rant the
in9unction2
'n other cases the courts ha:e sou8ht to a:oid the application of the American Cyanamid principles -y interpretin8
them in a ;ay that permits a 9ud8e to consider the merits of the case2 'n " v Secretary of State for %rans*ort, E/ *.
#actortame,E! the Douse of $ords heard an application to restrain the enforcement of the @erchant Shippin8 Act
9CC -ecause it ;as ar8ued to -e incompati-le ;ith ,uropean +nion la;2 $ord 0auncey specifically stated that the
American Cyanamid requirement of esta-lishin8 a serious question to -e tried ;as not appropriate in the case -efore
the Douse, a case that only in:ol:ed a question of la;2 Dis $ordship said that a stron8 prima facie case needed to -e
esta-lished, -ut his $ordship emphasised that he ;as not -ein8 critical of the $ord DiplocB approach2EC
'nterestin8ly, and this pro-a-ly is indicati:e of the di:er8ence in response to American Cyanamid, $ord Noff felt
that the American Cyanamid principles ;ere appropriate in decidin8 #actortame. )ot;ithstandin8 that, his $ordship
did say that the pu-lic interest in the enforcement of a :alid la; ;as so 8reat that those impu8nin8 the :alidity of the
la; had to put for;ard Imatters of considera-le ;ei8ht O into the -alance to out;ei8h the desira-ility of enforcin8
O ;hat is on its face the la;2JE9 This almost 8oes as far as sayin8 that there is a need for a *rima facie case to -e
pro:ed2 't has -een su-mitted that $ord Noff ;as merely payin8 lip ser:ice to American Cyanamid -ecause he
ended up in the same place as $ord 0auncey, ha:in8 taBen a different, -ut more indirect route2!0
*+.4 <hat ;as the status of $ord DiplocBHs comments= <ere they rules or 8uidelines= #ourts appear to ha:e
accepted them as the latter so as not to circumscri-e the courtHs discretion2 ,mphasis has -een placed on the fact that
his $ordship re8arded the remedy as discretionary,! and there appears to -e some fle1i-ility in the elements that he
prescri-ed2!2 .err $202 said in Cam+rid0e -'trition Ltd v 11C!5 that American Cyanamid Iis no more than a set of
useful 0'idelines ;hich apply in many cases2 't must ne:er -e used as a rule of thum-, let alone as a strait/9acBetJ!4
6my emphasis72 Dis $ordship indicated that American Cyanamid ;as not layin8 do;n principles of uni:ersal
application, and in liBe manner Kutler/Sloss $202 in Lansin0 Linde Ltd v 2err!" said that American Cyanamid only
set out 8uidelines and they ;ere not to co:er e:ery e:entuality2!E $ord Noff in #actortame!! a8reed, statin8 that
they ;ere 8uidelines -ecause $ord DiplocB ;as not intendin8 to fetter the discretion conferred on courts, -ut on the
contrary ;as freein8 them from that imposed on courts -y earlier cases, namely requirin8 the plaintiff to esta-lish a
prima facie case -efore permittin8 any consideration of other issues such as the -alance of con:enience2
A2A2S2 PucBerman has ar8ued!C that the ar8ua-le case theory that found its 8enesis in American Cyanamid ;as put
to rest -y three decisions, namely #actortame, Cam+rid0e -'trition Ltd v 11C!9 and Lansin0 Linde v 2err.C0 Kut,
the assessment of PucBerman does not appear to -e in line ;ith some of the recent case la;, -ecause ;hile the case
has -een, as indicated a-o:e, side/stepped or i8nored -ecause of the many e1ceptions de:ised, and the ad:ent of the
#i:il %rocedure Rules has introduced a different approach to the mana8ement of cases,C it has -een applied quite
frequently2 Also, the latter t;o cases referred to -y PucBerman can -e e1plained on the -asis of -ein8 reco8nised
e1ceptions to the American Cyanamid principles,C2 and #actortame can -e e1plained on the -asis that it in:ol:ed a
question of la;2 *urthermore, in #actortame $ord 0auncey said that he ;as not intendin8 to -e critical of $ord
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e E

(ite as! "
DiplocBHs approach and $ord Noff 6;ith ;hom $ords Krandon and (li:er a8reed7 applied American Cyanamid
principles2 Kut ha:in8 said that, clearly the American Cyanamid principles are not adhered to ri8idly2
(ne of the primary criticisms of American Cyanamid has -een that the dan8er in not considerin8 the merits of the
cases of the parties is that a court mi8ht *+.+ ;ell 8i:e relief to a party ;ho has no ri8htful claim2C5 'f this ;ere to
occur of course it could precipitate si8nificant pre9udice to the party ;ho loses at the interim sta8e, althou8h it must
-e said that the American Cyanamid principles attempt to ensure that if a party ;ins at the interim le:el, -ut fails at
trial, he or she ;ill -e required, and ;ill -e a-le, to compensate the other party -y the payment of dama8es2
L2 Series 5 //a ne; direction=
<hile there ;ere se:eral cases post/American Cyanamid ;here 9ud8es sou8ht to redefine the approach that $ord
DiplocB e1pounded, the 99E case of Series 5 Software Ltd v ClarkeC4 undou-tedly represents the hi8h/;ater marB2
This case in:ol:ed a claim of copyri8ht infrin8ement and ;as heard -y $addie 02 Accordin8 to $addie 02, $ord
DiplocB ;as addressin8 the unsatisfactory situation that had de:eloped in the #ourt of Appeal in American
Cyanamid ;here the application, ;hich related to a case that in:ol:ed comple1 issues of chemistry and patent la;,
had -o88ed do;n2 $addie 02 interpreted $ord DiplocB to mean that he ;as not sayin8 courts cannot taBe into account
the stren8ths of the partiesH cases2C" Rather, accordin8 to $addie 02, $ord DiplocB ;as only addressin8 one issue,
and that ;as to re9ect the idea that there ;as an infle1i-le rule that required a plaintiff to pro:e that he or she had a
prima facie case -efore an in9unction could -e 8ranted2CE $addie 02 concluded that the principles articulated in
American Cyanamid ;ere aimed at ensurin8 that interim in9unctions did not occupy lar8e chunBs of court time
rather than intendin8 to proscri-e any consideration of the stren8ths of the respecti:e parties to the liti8ationA $ord
DiplocB ;as concerned that if the approach taBen in the #ourt of Appeal in American Cyanamid ;as replicated in
all hearin8s, there ;ould -e mini/trials, and this ;ould cause chaos in the court system2
<hat courts hearin8 applications for interim in9unctions should not attempt to do, accordin8 to $addie 02, is to
resol:e difficult issues of fact and la;2C! Kut, this fails to taBe account of the fact that often a 9ud8e ;ill ha:e to
consider comple1 issues of fact or la; to decide ;hether the plaintiff has a stron8 enou8h case2 )e:ertheless, $addie
02 tooB the :ie; that if it is determined that one partyHs case is stron8er than the other then it ;ould not -e ri8ht to
i8nore it,CC and in his opinion that it is easy, in interim proceedin8s, to determine ;ho is liBely to ;in2C9 'f it is easy
to determine ;ho is liBely to ;in then it should -e relati:ely strai8htfor;ard to decide ;hether a *rima facie case
has -een made out2 Kut is this the case= 'f that is the case ;hy ;as $ord DiplocB so concerned a-out 9ud8es tryin8
to ascertain ;hether the plaintiff had a prima facie case= *+.- The difficulty, at an interim hearin8, of determinin8
;ho is liBely to ;in the case e:entually is e1emplified in American Cyanamid itself2 'n that case there ;ere different
:ie;s e1pressed -y the 9ud8e at first instance and -y the #ourt of Appeal concernin8 the liBelihood of the plaintiff
succeedin8 at the final hearin8290 This is not, it is respectfully su-mitted, an unusual state of affairs2
)ot;ithstandin8 the fact that $addie 02 stated that ;hat he ;as ad:ocatin8 ;as not inconsistent ;ith American
Cyanamid, it is difficult not to see it in such a li8ht, mainly -ecause the 9ud8e placed the stren8th of the partiesH cases
on the same le:el as the -alance of con:enience29 Also, ;hile $addie 02 said that a court should not undertaBe a
mini/trial, he ;as effecti:ely in:itin8 parties to ar8ue their cases as fully as they could at the interim hearin8 so that
a decision could -e made on the merits292
$auda-ly, in relation to this case, $addie 02 said that it is not satisfactory to pay lip ser:ice to American Cyanamid
and then apply different criteria295 *ar too often cases in the post/American Cyanamid period did not specifically
deny the application of American Cyanamid -ut sBirted around the case2 Ar8ua-ly it is often unrealistic to e1pect a
9ud8e not to form a :ie; a-out the stren8th of the partiesH cases ;hen he or she is determinin8 the -alance of
con:enience, and it is pro-a-ly e:en more unrealistic to e1pect a 9ud8e not to -e influenced -y that :ie; ;hen
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e !

(ite as! "
comin8 to a final conclusion on the application294 (:erall, ;hat $addie 02 e1pounded has -een ;elcomed in the
literature ;ritten -y practitioners, and this mi8ht -e e:idence of the fact that the approach adopted -y his $ordship is
re8arded as a hi8hly pra8matic approach to a difficult issue29"
The comments that $addie 02 made in Series 5 ;ere taBen up in some su-sequent cases2 *irst, $addie 02 in 1arclays
1ank 3lc v "1S Advanta9E stated that the stren8th of the partiesH cases is a ma9or factor in an application for an
in9unction2 De said that this could -e founded either on ;hat he said in Series 5, or as part of the consideration of the
-alance of con:enience29! $ater in Antec &nternational Ltd v So'th .est Chicks (.arren) Ltd9C his $ordship ;as
influenced -y the stren8th of the plaintiff Ms case, and stated that it is perfectly proper to assess the prospects of
success of the partiesH cases ;here this is possi-le on the material299
*+., 'n S&4 Architect'ral 3rod'cts Ltd v Castle o'se .indows Ltd,00Series 5 ;as not cited to the 9ud8e, Ro-ert
<alBer 02, -ut his $ordship raised it himself and indicated that he found the 9ud8ment to -e helpful in remindin8 the
9udiciary that after American Cyanamid it is still permissi-le to consider the relati:e stren8ths of the parties2 Dis
$ordship seemed to -e impressed -y the ;eaBness of the plaintiff Ms case in the case -efore him2 Su-sequently,
Ro-ert <alBer 02 ;ent on in 1arnsley 1rewery v "1-10 to re9ect the notion that Series 5 ;as heretical202 Dis
$ordship said that he re8arded it as a :alua-le reminder of the -acB8round and conte1t of American Cyanamid and
the latter caseHs messa8e, ;hich ;as to ensure that ;e do not ha:e mini/trials205
Ro-ert <alBer $202 6as he had no; -ecome704 in 4'ardian 5edia 3lc v Associated -ews*a*ers Ltd,0" after
emphasisin8 the fle1i-ility of the American Cyanamid principles, did not 8o as far as $addie 02 in Series 5, -ut
indicated that a court is entitled, ;ithout dero8atin8 from the principles, to 8i:e Iproper ;ei8ht to any clear :ie;
;hich the court can form at the time of the application for interim relief O as to the liBely outcome at trial2J0E
<ith respect, this appears to 8o further than $ord DiplocB ;ould ha:e 8one, for to do ;hat Ro-ert <alBer $202 is
su88estin8 in:ol:es, as a matter of necessity, a consideration of the merits of the case2 'nterestin8ly, in a later case,
o'sehold 4lo+al #'ndin0 &nc v 1ritish 4as %radin0,0! Ro-ert <alBer $202 did not refer to Series 5, and seemed
to accept that the 9ud8e at first instance acted correctly in applyin8 American Cyanamid.
'n completin8 this section, it is appropriate to note that sa:e for the 9ud8ments of $addie 02 himself and Ro-ert
<alBer $202, Series 5 does not appear to ha:e -een referred to -y courts in reported cases, since it ;as decided2 This
mi8ht -e an indication that the courts in 8eneral -elie:e the approach to -e fla;ed2
L'2 American Cyanamid in a ne; century
<e ha:e seen that ;hile it has recei:ed appropriate respect and application in many cases,0CAmerican Cyanamid
has -een frequently either side/stepped or the *+.. su-9ect of many e1ceptions, as ;ell as -ein8 the su-9ect of some
e1press and implicit criticism2 The latter is marBed -y the fact that courts ha:e either refrained from referrin8 to the
case or plainly said that the circumstances -efore them constituted an e1ception to the case2 Also, the ad:ent of the
#i:il %rocedure Rules has seen a different approach taBen in relation to case mana8ement compared ;ith the days
;hen American Cyanamid ;as decided, and consequently the case is not as critical as it once ;as209
%ro-a-ly the 8reatest effect on the impact of American Cyanamid, -esides the introduction of the #i:il %rocedure
Rules has -een the enactment of the Duman Ri8hts Act 99C, ;hich incorporates the ,uropean #on:ention on
Duman Ri8hts, and the fact that the Act pro:ides, in s2E, that courts are required to act in a ;ay that is compati-le
;ith the #on:ention, as ;ell as taBin8 into account the 9urisprudence emanatin8 from the ,uropean #ourt of Duman
Ri8hts20 'mportantly, the Duman Ri8hts Act has laid do;n some rules in relation to the 8rantin8 of in9unctions
that in:ol:e the inhi-itin8 of free speech2
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e C

(ite as! "
Cases involvin0 the 'man "i0hts Act
The Duman Ri8hts Act 99C has had an apprecia-le impact on ,n8lish la; since it -ecame operational in 20002
'nterim in9unctions are a-le to -e used -y a person or -ody as a shield or a s;ord ;hen it comes to #on:ention
ri8hts22 #learly, the 8rantin8 of interim in9unctions has -een affected, primarily in the area of freedom of
e1pression2
The focus of this section of the article is on the ri8ht of freedom of e1pression2 Any attempt to ha:e the pu-lication
-y a person of somethin8 restrained -y in9unction could fall foul of Art20 of the ,uropean #on:ention on Duman
Ri8hts, ;hich upholds the ri8ht to free e1pression2 Kut it must not -e for8otten that Art20627 reco8nises the fact that
to safe8uard other interests a personHs ri8ht to e1pression mi8ht -e curtailed in some ;ay -y la;2 The effect of the
Article is that:
IAny in9unction, ;hich -y definition is a restriction on the e1ercise of the ri8ht to freedom of e1pression, must -e
9ustified as -ein8 no more than is necessary in a democratic society2J5
@ost rele:ant to decidin8 ;hether any relief ou8ht to -e 8i:en in cases in:ol:in8 the ri8ht to freedom of e1pression,
as set out in the ,uropean #on:ention on Duman Ri8hts, is s22 of the Duman Ri8hts Act 99C2 Section 2657
rele:antly pro:ides:
*+./ I)o such relief Faffectin8 the e1ercise of the #on:ention ri8ht to freedom of e1pressionG is to -e 8ranted so as
to restrain the pu-lication -efore trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is liBely to esta-lish that
pu-lication should -e allo;ed2J
Do; does this pro:ision fit in ;ith the principles pro:ided for in American Cyanamid = Does it affect the approach
that courts ha:e to adopt= This is not easily resol:ed as the case la; has caused some confusion2 Some cases ha:e
su88ested that ;hen considerin8 s22657 the same principles as those laid do;n -y American Cyanamid are to -e
in:oBed, ;hile another line of cases has taBen the :ie; that American Cyanamid must -e put to one side and
different issues considered, principally the merits of the respecti:e cases2
*irst, in Lakeside omes Ltd v 11C,4 it ;as common 8round that the principles in American Cyanamid did not
apply to a case ;here s22657 of the Duman Ri8hts Act 99C had to -e considered, and #ress;ell 02 appeared to
accept that that ;as correct2 Shortly after that case, in )o'0las v ello Ltd," the #ourt of Appeal said, in the
conte1t of a consideration of s22657 and the issue of freedom of e1pression, that it ;as incum-ent on a court to
consider the merits of the case2 .eenan $202 indicated that somethin8 more than applyin8 the principles in American
Cyanamid ;as required2 De said that: Ithe court must looB -eyond con:entional American #yanamid principles and
seeB to discern ;here the -alance of 9ustice lies O the court has to looB ahead to the ultimate sta8e and to -e
satisfied that the scales are liBely to come do;n in the applicantHs fa:our2JE
Su-sequently, in &m'tran Sir Andre; @orritt L2/#2 said that there ;as no apprecia-le difference -et;een ;hat ;as
required -y the American Cyanamid principles and ;hat ;as required under s226572 'n his 9ud8ment, his $ordship
felt that the position that he ;as taBin8 ;as consistent ;ith that taBen in )o'0las. 'n another sin8le 9ud8e decision,
%heakston v 54- Ltd,! an approach similar to the #ourt of Appeal in )o'0las ;as applied2 'n %heakston
(useley 02 said that:
I'n any e:ent, ' ha:e some difficulty in seein8 ho; the approach required -y section 2657 can -e other than the
#laimant must sho; that it is more pro-a-le than not that he ;ill succeed in o-tainin8 an in9unction at trial O 'f
%arliament had intended the rele:ant test to -e ;hether the claimant had a real prospect of success, it ;ould ha:e
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 9

(ite as! "
used that familiar le8al phrase2 ' consider that it is intended to impose the discerni-ly more ri8orous requirement
;hich it did in this particular conte1t of freedom of e1pression2JC
*+.0 Thereafter, the #ourt of Appeal in A v 1 3lc9 e1pressed the :ie;, in passin8, that &m'tran ;as consistent
;ith )o'0las, there-y confusin8 the matter further2 Kut, a differently constituted -ench of the #ourt of Appeal, in
Cream oldin0s Ltd v Ch'mki 1anner6ee $ %he Liver*ool )aily 3ost $ Echo Ltd,20 considered the matter in
more detail and clearly stated that &m'tran and )o'0las ;ere not consistent and that the approach in the former ;as
correct2 The #ourt came to the same conclusion as the #ourt in )o'0las that more than a consideration of the
American Cyanamid principles ;as in:ol:ed ;hen a case in:ol:ed s226572 Specifically, the #ourt said that the
American Cyanamid test should not -e -uilt upon, -ut put to one side ;hen s22657 is -ein8 considered2 2 'n
Cream oldin0s Arden $202, after referrin8 to s22657 and the fact that it required the court to -e satisfied that the
applicant ;as liBely to esta-lish at trial that pu-lication should not -e allo;ed, said:
IThis is a different test from the American #yanamid test2 The e1ercise ;hich the court is required to perform is an
alto8ether different e1ercise from that ;hich it ;ould ha:e performed under the American #yanamid case2J22
Der $adyship ;ent on to say that the court must consider the merits of the le8al and factual case and after doin8 so
decide ;hether the applicant has a real prospect of success in esta-lishin8 that pu-lication should -e restrained225
Arden $202 said that the 9ud8e has to -e satisfied Ithat there is no o-:ious reason ;hy the claim should not
succeed2J24
All of this leads one to conclude that it is no lon8er 8oin8 to -e possi-le for an applicant in a freedom of e1pression
case merely to demonstrate that there ;as a serious question to -e tried2 #learly, the American Cyanamid principles
are not to -e applied to a case that in:ol:es a consideration of s222
%lacin8 ;hat appears to -e a hea:ier -urden on applicants for in9unctions in:ol:in8 freedom of e1pression is
consistent ;ith the 9urisprudence that has de:eloped in the ,uropean #ourt of Duman Ri8hts concernin8 Art202
This 9urisprudence has -een I8enerally hostile to prior restraint -y the courts2J2" 'n %he 7+server and %he
4'ardian v 822E the ,uropean #ourt of Duman Ri8hts stated that applications for prior restraints are to -e su-9ect
to the most careful scrutiny -y the court22!
*+.1 7ther cases
#ourts in recent times ha:e continued the trend that de:eloped soon after $ord DiplocBHs speech, namely to find that
some Binds of cases necessitate refrainin8 from implementin8 the American Cyanamid principles2 *or instance, in
Emman'el #rancis v %he "oyal 1oro'0h of 2ensin0ton and Chelsea2C the #ourt of Appeal said that 9udicial
re:ie; cases are not su-9ect to the American Cyanamid principles, as a court is to asB first ;hether there is a prima
facie case and then if there is, the -alance of con:enience element in:ol:es a ;ider consideration than in normal
cases, includin8 the merits of the partiesH cases229
(ther 9ud8es ha:e continued to interpret American Cyanamid in such as ;ay as to permit them to ha:e re8ard for
the stren8th of the partiesH cases2 ' ha:e already referred to the decision of the #ourt of Appeal in 4'ardian 5edia
3lc v Associated -ews*a*ers Ltd50 in the conte1t of discussin8 Series 5. 'n 4'ardian 5edia Ro-ert <alBer $202
did not e1pressly em-race the comments of $addie 02 in Series 5, -ut he did state that the American Cyanamid
principles allo; for fle1i-ility and Ido not pre:ent a court from 8i:in8 proper ;ei8ht to any clear :ie; that the court
can form at the time of the application O as to the liBely outcome at trial2J5 Dis $ordship did note in parentheses
that this must not in:ol:e a mini/trial2
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 0

(ite as! "
)e:ertheless, as indicated earlier, courts continue to rely on American Cyanamid principles2 'n the recent Douse of
$ordsH appeal in the Shayler liti8ation, Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch,52 and dealin8 ;ith a claim of contempt of court
relatin8 to the failure to adhere to the terms of an in9unction, $ord Doffmann relied on American Cyanamid and
noted that ;ith interim in9unction applications the courts maBe a rulin8 Ipendin8 a decision on the merits2J55 $ord
Dope in his speech, after referrin8 to the 8uidelines in American Cyanamid, emphasised the fact that it is not part of
the courtHs role to resol:e conflicts of e:idence or questions of la;254
%he Civil 3roced're "'les
Any discussion of American Cyanamid has to taBe place in li8ht of the de:elopments in practice that ha:e occurred
as a consequence of the #i:il %rocedure Rules2 As mentioned at the commencement of this section of the article, the
introduction of the #i:il %rocedure Rules has seen the emer8ence of a different approach to case mana8ement, ;ith
the consequence that the principles in American Cyanamid are not as critical as they once ;ere25" +nder the #i:il
%rocedure Rules there is, inter alia, 8reater emphasis on identifyin8 and resol:in8 issues liBely to 8o to hearin8 as
early as possi-le,5E so that the *+.2 ma9or concern of $ord DiplocB, and manifested in his speech in American
Cyanamid, of cases -o88in8 do;n, is not as acute as it once ;as2
An assessment
)ot;ithstandin8 the num-er of cases in ;hich American Cyanamid has not -een applied, for one reason or another,
the principles it laid do;n are still referred to re8ularly in the recent case la; and follo;ed in many25!
'nterestin8ly, the court in Cream oldin0s Ltd v Ch'mki 1anner6ee $ %he Liver*ool )aily 3ost $ Echo Ltd5C
appeared to accept the fact that if it ;ere not dealin8 ;ith the Duman Ri8hts Act, the American Cyanamid
principles ;ould apply259
Ar8ua-ly, American Cyanamid ;ill not -e applied in nearly as many cases as it once ;as for three reasons2 *irst,
the courts are continuin8 to add ne; e1ceptions to the application of the principles2 Secondly, the e1istence of s22
of the Duman Ri8hts Act is liBely to lead courts in freedom of e1pression cases to decide that they ;ill need to
consider the merits of the partiesH ar8uments2 Thirdly, the #i:il %rocedure Rules mean that Ithe conte1t ;ithin ;hich
the American Cyanamid rules ;ere desi8ned to operate has altered2J40 *or instance, the delays -et;een the issuin8
of proceedin8s and the trial are si8nificantly reduced24 #onsequently, it has -een su88ested that:
Ithere may come a time ;hen the application of the rules to cases ;here the court can maBe a reasona-le assessment
of the prospects of either side should -e re/assessed -y the Douse of $ords2J42
All of this causes one to asB: are the principles laid do;n -y $ord DiplocB doin8 ;hat they ;ere intended to do= 't
could -e ar8ued that they are not2 #hristine Nray commented in 9C that Ithere is little uniformity of approach
-et;een decisionsJ45 in a post/American Cyanamid ;orld, and it seems that that statement holds true no;2 There
continues to -e a lacB of certainty as to ;hat approach a court is 8oin8 to taBe2
$ea:in8 aside Series 5, one can note that American Cyanamid has -een follo;ed more often than not in relati:ely
recent commercial cases,44 althou8h ;ith the application of the principles underlyin8 the #i:il %rocedure Rules
the *+.3 occasions on ;hich American Cyanamid ;ill -e applied in the future may ;ell -e fe;er2 Kut it is in non/
commercial cases, and particularly cases in:ol:in8 pu-lic la; issues,4" ;here one finds that American Cyanamid
is not applied as courts either hold that the case -efore them is an e1ception to American Cyanamid or they merely
i8nore the case2
L''2 #onclusion
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e

(ite as! "
The 8rantin8 of in9unctions is an important part of the ;orB of the courts and the la; that relates to them must -e as
helpful as possi-le in 8uidin8 parties and their le8al representati:es2 The speech of $ord DiplocB in American
Cyanamid ;as intended to 8i:e a more precise test for determinin8 ;hether or not an in9unction should -e 8ranted,
and there-y -rin8 some order to the ad hoc decision/maBin8 that preceded American Cyanamid. The pro-lem ;ith
the pre/American Cyanamid approach is manifested in cases liBe American Cyanamid itself, ;here the #ourt of
Appeal disa8reed ;ith the assessment of the 9ud8e at first instance concernin8 the stren8th of the case for the
plaintiff2 Kut it is hi8hly de-ata-le ;hether the o-9ecti:e of $ord DiplocB has e:er -een achie:ed2 *irst, the
precision ;hich the case sou8ht to -rin8 is illusory, -ecause lea:in8 aside a fe; cases ;hich are resol:ed -y the
preliminary considerations propounded -y his $ordship, it is incum-ent on courts to mo:e onto a rather :a8ue
-alancin8 act24E Secondly, courts, in the name of fle1i-ility and discretion, ha:e refrained from applyin8 the
8uidelines ;hen it suited them2
Some4! ha:e taBen the :ie; that American Cyanamid ;as ne:er ;ell/founded, and such commentators are
some;hat supported -y the case la; since 9!", for there has -een the need to de:elop a si8nificant num-er of
e1ceptions to it2 *urthermore, there ha:e -een many attempts at side/steppin8 the decision -y interpretin8 it in a ;ay
that permits a 9ud8e to consider the merits of the case2 American Cyanamid sou8ht to -rin8 more certainty to the
area as ;ell as re/assertin8 9udicial discretion, -ut in effect it produced uncertainty4C in that liti8ants did not Bno;
;hether the principles in American Cyanamid ;ould 8uide the 9ud8e or ;hether the 9ud8e ;ould hold that the
particular case represented an e1ception to American Cyanamid.
American Cyanamid remains an important case, -ut it mi8ht ;ell -e ar8ued that its reach is more restricted no;,
and may e:en -ecome more restricted in the future than it ;as in the pre:ious century2 The num-er of e1ceptions to
the case ha:e increased, althou8h not 8reatly, -ut the ad:ent of the Duman Ri8hts Act, and particularly the manner
in ;hich s22 has -een interpreted in the ma9ority of cases, has e1cluded the application of American Cyanamid
from, potentially, a lar8e :olume of cases2 *urthermore, there is a su88estion that the *+/4 chan8e in procedural
culture intended to -e -rou8ht a-out -y the #i:il %rocedure Rules ;ill also see American Cyanamid applied less
frequently2
The -est that la;yers can do, it ;ould seem, is to assume that, a-sent cases re:ol:in8 around Art20 of the ,uropean
#on:ention, or cases in:ol:in8 ;ell/reco8nised e1ceptions to American Cyanamid, a court may -e inclined to apply
the principles laid do;n -y $ord DiplocB2 Da:in8 said that, there is al;ays the possi-ility that a court ;ill decide to
create a fresh e1ception or modify an e1istin8 one, or e:en to a:oid the American Cyanamid approach -y, for
instance, taBin8 the :ie; that the merits of the partiesH respecti:e cases forms part of the special factors referred to
-y $ord DiplocB2
' ;ould liBe to thanB %rofessor 'an Scott for comments on an earlier :ersion2 Any errors are, of course, the
responsi-ility of the author2
Q

Q
2 See #%R, r22"202 Also, see, A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6the .hite 1ook 7 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon,
20027, Lol2 at p2"42 (ften these in9unctions are still referred to as Iinterlocutory in9unctionsJ2+nreported, 0une 20,
99E and referred to in 02 %hillips, I'nterim in9unctions and intellectual property: a re:ie; of American Cyanamid v
Ethicon in the li8ht of Series 5 Software J F99!G 02K2$2 4CE at p24C92
22 offman!La "oche (#) $ Co. v Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry F9!"G A2#2 29" at 5"" per $ord
<i-erforce2 D2 Kean asserts 6&n6'nctions, "th ed2, $on8man, 99, at p2257 that the courts 8rant far more interim
in9unctions each year compared ;ith perpetual in9unctions2 See, for e1ample, R2 Scott 6ed27, S'*reme Co'rt 3ractice
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 2

(ite as! "
<==> 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 99E7, Lol2, %t at pp2"05/"0" for a discussion of the 8eneral principles and
particular instances of in9unctions 8ranted2F99!G *2S2R2 4E22
52 See offman!La "oche (#) $ Co. v Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry F9!"G A2#2 29" at 5""/5"E 6D$7A
Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F2005G A2#2 04E at F99G, D$2i+id., at 4!22
42 Attorney!4eneral v %imes -ews*a*ers Ltd F992G A2#2 9 at 2E2 Accordin8 to the #ourt of Appeal in
Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F200G 32K2 02C at 040/04, a court may ha:e more than one purpose in a;ardin8
an in9unction2i+id.
"2 A2A2S2 PucBerman, I'nterim remedies in quest of procedural fairnessJ 69957 "E @2$2R2 52" at p252E2The other
mem-ers of the court 6Denry $202 and Scott KaBer 027 a8reein8 ;ith his $ordshipHs 9ud8ment2
E2 0ohn $e-eusdorf, IThe standard for preliminary in9unctionsJ 69!C7 9 Dar:2$2R2 "2" at p2"2"2 $ord DiplocB in
offman!La "oche (#) $ Co. v Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry F9!"G A2#2 29" at 5E0 referred to it as an
Ie1ceptional remedy2J2000 <$ 5505"2
!2 0ohn $e-eusdorf, o*. cit., n2E, at p2"2"2i+id., at para2C2
C2 D2 Kean, o*. cit., n22, at p2252F200G ,<#A #i: "E2
92 See the comments of $ord Dennin8 in #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22 at 292*or e1amples of recent
case la;, see, )yrl'nd Smith A?S v %'+erville Smith Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 !!4, #AA 5ac5illan 5a0a@ines Ltd v ".C.-.
3'+lishin0 Co. Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 9A 8nited 3an!E'ro*e Comm'nications -, v )e'tsche 1ank A4 F2000G 2
K2#2$2#2 4E, #AA &ncase* Ltd v (ones, 200 <$ !940A -e/tcall %elecom 3lc v 1ritish %elecomm'nications
3lc, 2000 <$ 5520"5A .alker v ..A. 3ersonnel Ltd F2002G K2%2'2R2 E22
02 See Commonwealth of A'stralia v (ohn #airfa/ 69C07 4! #2$2R2 59A A'stralian Coarse 4rains 3ool v 1arley
5arketin0 1oard 69C27 4E A2$2R2 59C2A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 20027,
Lol2 at p2"42
2 D2 Delany, I%ractice//interim in9unctions//adequacy of dama8es and other discretionary factorsJ 69957 "
)'+lin 8niversity Law (o'rnal 22C at p225E2Duman Ri8hts Act 99C, s222 See the comments of Dame ,li&a-eth
Kutler/Sloss in ,ena+les and %hom*son v -ews 4ro'* -ews*a*ers F200G ,2@2$2R2 0 at F00G2
22 F9!"G A2#2 59E2 The ,uropean #ourt of Duman Ri8hts in %he S'nday %imes v 8nited 2in0dom (-o.9) 6997
4 ,2D2R2R2 229 at 255 said that the dominant le8al principles as far as interim in9unctions are concerned ;ere
esta-lished in common la; in American Cyanamid.*or a -road discussion of this topic, see $2 #larBe, I'n9unctions
and the Duman Ri8hts Act 99C: 9urisdiction and discretionJ 620027 2 #20232 292
52 The present edition 6A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 20027, Lol27 follo;s
suit 6at p2""7, not;ithstandin8 the ad:ent of the #%R and ;hat is stated in the edition later 6at p2""7 concernin8
the importance of the case2 %erhaps it is note;orthy that the case is not discussed in detail as it ;as in editions
dealin8 ;ith Supreme #ourt %ractice 6up to 99972'2 $ei8h and $2 $ust8arten, I@aBin8 ri8hts real: the courts,
remedies, and the Duman Ri8hts ActJ 69997 "C #2$202 "09 at p2"52
42 #2 Nray, I'nterim in9unctions since American Cyanamid J 69C7 40 #2$202 50!2&m'tran Ltd v 8nca0ed
Cam*ai0ns Ltd F200G 2 All ,2R2 5C" at para222
"2 F99EG All ,2R2 C"522000 <$ C4E022
E2 ilton v Earl of 4ranville 6C47 #r2 ? %h2 2C5 at 292A 4 ,2R2 49C at "022F200G 32K2 9E!2
!2 'n !C2 in the case of #ield v (ackson 6DicB2 "99A 2 ,2R2 4047 the court relied upon the ;eaBness of the case of
the plaintiff2 See A2 Nore, I'nterlocutory in9unctions//a final 9ud8ment=J 69!"7 5C @2$2R2 E!2 at p2E!42i+id., at
00!, 00C2
C2 *or e1ample, see 4lascott v Lan0 6C5C7 5 @y2 ? #r2 4" at 4""A 40 ,2R2 000 at 002A Shrews+'ry $ C "ly v
Shrews+'ry $ 1 "ly 6C"7 Sim2 6)2S27 40 at 42E/42!A E ,2R2 "9 at E"/EE2F2002G ,<D# 5!2
92 %2 %rescott 69!"7 9 $232R2 EC at p2E92 Also, see Shrews+'ry $ C "ly v Shrews+'ry $ 1 "ly 6C"7 Sim2
6)2S27 40A E ,2R2 "92i+id., at F20G2
202 o*. cit., n2E, at p2"552F2002G 5 <2$2R2 "42 at FCG2 't is perhaps nota-le that in A v 1 3lc $ord <oolf #202, in
handin8 do;n the 9ud8ment of the #ourt of Appeal, refrained from mentionin8 American Cyanamid at all2
22 F9!"G A2#2 29"2F2005G 2 All ,2R2 5C2
222 i+id., at 55C, 5E02 Also, see, for e1ample, Cavendish o'se (Cheltenham) Ltd v Cavendish!.oodho'se Ltd
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 5

(ite as! "
F9!0G R2%2#2 2C4, #A2i+id., at F25G2
252 F9E"G A2#2 2E9 at 525/52", 55, 542, 55C2i+id., at F05G2
242 *or e1ample, see Smith v 4ri00 Ltd F924G .2K2 E"", #AA ).C. %homson $ Co. Ltd v )eakin F9"2G #h2 E4E,
#AA 3a0e 7ne "ecords Ltd v 1ritton F9ECG <2$2R2 "!A Cavendish o'se (Cheltenham) Ltd v Cavendish!
.oodho'se Ltd (<=AB) F9!0G R2%2#2 254, #AA '++ard v ,os*er F9!2G 2 32K2 C4, #A2 Also this :ie; ;as
articulated in se:eral practitioner te1ts accordin8 to $addie 02 in Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2
C"5 at C"!2i+id., at F2G2
2"2 Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"5 at C"E2i+id.
2E2 See a-o:e n292)o'0las v ello Ltd F200G 32K2 9E! at 00C2
2!2 F9!EG 32K2 22 at 2926997 4 ,2D2R2R2 "52
2C2 See the comments of $addie 02 in Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"52i+id., at E2 See the
comments in '2 $ei8h and $2 $ust8arten, I@aBin8 ri8hts real: the courts, remedies, and the Duman Ri8hts ActJ
69997 "C #2$202 "09 at p2"542
292 F9!"G A2#2 29"22005 <$ 955"E", #A2
502 Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"5 at C"" *er $addie 02i+id., at FG2
52 #learly the approach ;as a departure from pre:ious practice2 The case does not apply to Scotland2 See -.L Ltd
v .oods F9!9G <2$2R2 294 at 509/5022000 <$ 5505"2
522 F9!4G *2S2R2 522i+id., at FCG2
552 The same approach ;as clearly espoused in other cases2 *or e1ample, in Cavendish o'se (Cheltenham) Ltd v
Cavendish!.oodho'se Ltd F9!0G R2%2#2 254, #A2 Also, see R2 Scott 6ed27, S'*reme Co'rt 3ractice <==> 6S;eet
and @a1;ell, $ondon, 99E7, Lol2, %t at p2"04 for a succinct discussion of the -alance of con:enience issue2
F2005G A2#2 04E2
542 'n fact Nraham 02 had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had made out a stron8 *rima facie case 6F9!"G
A2#2 59E at 40"72i+id., at F!4G2
5"2 F9!"G A2#2 59E at 40E2 'n 4'lf 7il (4reat 1ritain) Ltd v 3a0e F9C!G #h2 52! at 5552 %arBer $202 said that there
;as -oth a serious question to -e tried and a *rima facie case2i+id., at F99G2
5E2 American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd F9!"G A2#2 59E at 40!2A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and
@a1;ell, $ondon, 20027, Lol2 at p2"42
5!2 i+id., at 40C2i+id.
5C2 i+id.*or e1ample, )o'0las v ello Ltd F200G 32K2 9E!A 4'inness 8), -orth America &nc v #le/itrace Ltd
F200G All ,2R2 6D27 0A &ncase* Ltd v (ones, 200 <$ !940A 1#& 7*tilas v 1lyth F2002G ,<D# 2E95A
Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F2005G A2#2 04E2
592 *or e1ample, the pu-lic interest in E/*ress -ews*a*ers Ltd v 2eys F9C0G '2R2$2R2 24!22005 <$ !042
402 American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd F9!"G A2#2 59E at 4092F2005G 2 All ,2R2 5C at F0G and F04G2
42 i+id.A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 20027, Lol2, %t at p2"42
422 F9E"G A2#2 2E92i+id.
452 F9!4G *2S2R2 522i+id., and referrin8 to Smithkline 1eecham v 4enerics 82 Ltd, unreported, (cto-er 25, 200,
0aco- 02
442 A2A2S2 PucBerman, I'nterim in9unctions on the meritsJ 6997 0! $232R2 9E at p29!2o*. cit., n24, at p2552
4"2 *or e1ample, see a-o:e n2C at !A $ord Dennin8 in #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22 at 50 said that
the case had perple1ed the profession2*or e1ample, see 5ac5illam 5a0a@ines Ltd v ".C.-. 3'+lishin0 Com*any
Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 9A )yrl'nd Smith A?S v %'+erville Smith Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 !!4A -e/tcall %elecom 3lc v 1ritish
%elecomm'nications 3lc, 2000 <$ 5520"5A Consolidated 7il Ltd v American E/*ress 1ank Ltd, unreported,
0anuary 2, 2000, #A 6and a:aila-le throu8h $e1is)e1is7A &ncase* Ltd v (ones, 200 <$ !940A &ntercontinental
Ener0y Ltd v (owitt, 200 <$ "E0!4!A London "e0ional %rans*ort v %he 5ayor of London F200G ,<#A #i:
49A 1.#.&. 7*tilas v 1lyth F2002G ,<D# 2E952
4E2 F9!EG 32K2 22 at 402*or instance, see ". v 5inistry of A0ric'lt're, #isheries and #ood F999G 32K2 E,
#A2
4!2 F9!9G *2S2R2 55! at 5!2/5!520ohn $e-eusdorf, o*. cit., n2E, at p2"402
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e 4

(ite as! "
4C2 i+id., at 5E", 5E9/5!02)ota-ly A2A2S2 PucBerman, o*. cit., n2442
492 *or e1ample, %homas 5arshall (E/*orts) Ltd v 4'inle F9!9G *2S2R2 20C2#ompare the :ie; of 02 %hillips in
I'nterim in9unctions and intellectual property: a re:ie; of Cyanamid v Ethicon in the li8ht of Series 5 F99!G 02K2$2
4CE2
"02 *or e1ample, #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22A '++ard v ,os*er F9!EG 32K2 422
"2 F9!"G A2#2 59E at 4092 A prime e1ample is $ord Dennin8 in #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22 at 552
"22 F9!EG 32K2 42 at C"2
"52 F9!EG 32K2 222
"42 i+id., at 592
""2 F9!9G <2$2R2 294, D$2
"E2 As $ord Steyn pointed out in Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F2005G A2#2 04E at F00G, decisions in
application for in9unctions in industrial disputes are almost al;ays decisi:e2
"!2 *or other e1amples, see 02 @artin, an+'ry and 5artinCs 5odern ED'ity 6Eth ed2, S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon,
2007, at pp2!C4/!902
"C2 Cam+rid0e -'trition Ltd v 11C F990G 5 All ,2R2 "25 at "54, #AA )o'0las v ello Ltd F200G 32K2 9E!2
"92 )e #alco v Crawley 1C F9C0G 32K2 4E0, #AA Leis're )ata v 1ell F9CCG *2S2R2 5E!A Emman'el #rancis v
%he "oyal 1oro'0h of 2ensin0ton and Chelsea, 2005 <$ 955"E", #A2
E02 1ryanston #inance Ltd v de ,ries 6)o227 F9!EG All ,2R2 2", #A2
E2 Alfred )'nhill Ltd v S'no*tics F9!9G *2S2R2 55! at 5E52
E22 i+id.
E52 -...L. Ltd v .oods F9!9G <2$2R2 294 at 50C, D$A Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F2005G A2#2 04E at
F00G, D$2 See %2 <allin8ton, I'n9unctions and the Mri8ht to demonstrateJR F9!EG #2$202 C22
E42 F9!9G <2$2R2 294 at 50E2 The #ourt of Appeal in Cayne v 4lo+al -at'ral "eso'rces 3lc F9C4G All ,2R2
22" thou8ht this to -e ;ise2 Also, see the comments of the #ourt of Appeal in Cam+rid0e -'trition Ltd v 11C
F990G 5 All ,2R2 "25 and Lawrence Ashton Ltd v Ashton F99G All ,2R2 5C"2
E"2 *or instance, the 9ud8es of the #ourt of Appeal in Cam+rid0e -'trition Ltd v 11C F990G 5 All ,2R2 "252
EE2 F9!EG 32K2 22 at 552 Specifically in Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F200G 32K2 02C at 0"4 $ord %hillips
@2R2, in the #ourt of Appeal, said that the claimantHs o-9ecti:e ;as fulfilled in many cases -y the a;ardin8 of an
in9unction2 Also, see )o'0las v ello Ltd F200G 32K2 9E!, althou8h this case ;as decided on the -asis of s22657 of
the Duman Ri8hts Act 99C, ;hich requires the court to consider the merits of the case2 See Cream oldin0s Ltd v
Ch'mki 1anner6ee $ %he Liver*ool )aily 3ost $ Echo Ltd, 2005 <$ !04 ;here the #ourt of Appeal discussed
the matter in more detail2
E!2 F990G A2#2 C"2
EC2 i+id., at 222
E92 i+id., at !/C2
!02 02 @artin, I'nterim in9unctions: American Cyanamid comes of a8eJ 69957 4 %he 2in0Cs Colle0e Law (o'rnal "2
at p2"!2
!2 #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22 at 592 (n the same lines, see the recent #ourt of Appeal decision in
Smithkline 1eecham 3lc v A*ote/ E'ro*e Ltd, 2005 <$ 95559"2
!22 #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22 at 592
!52 F990G 5 All ,2R2 "252
!42 i+id., at "552
!"2 F99G All ,2R2 4C2
!E2 i+id., at 4552
!!2 F990G A2#2 C" at E, C2 Also see the comments of $ord 0auncey at 252
!C2 o* cit., n2442
!92 F990G 5 All ,2R2 "252
C02 F99G All ,2R2 4C2
C2 See, A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 20027, Lol2 at p2"42
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e "

(ite as! "
C22 The decision -y the courts in the respecti:e applications for an interlocutory in9unction ;ould -e decisi:e in the
liti8ation2
C52 o*. cit., n2", at p252C2
C42 F99EG All ,2R2 C"52
C"2 i+id., at CE52
CE2 i+id., at CE42
C!2 i+id.
CC2 i+id., at CE"2
C92 i+id., at CE42
902 A point made -y DereB (HKrien in ITo;ards a redefinition of the American Cyanamid 8uidelinesJ 699E7 50
Law %eacher 5EC at p25!42
92 Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"5 at CE42
922 02 <atts and $2 Reynolds, IA ne; approach to interim in9unctions=J 699E7 2 Com*'ter and
%elecomm'nications Law "eview EE at p2EC2
952 Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"5 at C"E2
942 See D2 (HKrien, o*. cit., n290, at p25!52
9"2 See i+id. A @2 ,den-orou8h and N2 Tritton, IAmerican Cyanamid re:isitedJ 699E7 C ,2'2%2R2 254A A2 %ellin8
and 02 Steinert, I'nterim relief: interpretin8 American Cyanamid J 699!7 C '2#2#2$2R2 !C2
9E2 F99EG R2%2#2 50!2
9!2 i+id., at 5C2
9C2 F99!G *2S2R2 2!C2
992 i+id.
002 See #%R, r22"202 Also, see, A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6the .hite 1ook 7 6S;eet and @a1;ell,
$ondon, 20027, Lol2 at p2"42 (ften these in9unctions are still referred to as Iinterlocutory in9unctionsJ2+nreported,
0une 20, 99E and referred to in 02 %hillips, I'nterim in9unctions and intellectual property: a re:ie; of American
Cyanamid v Ethicon in the li8ht of Series 5 Software J F99!G 02K2$2 4CE at p24C92
02 offman!La "oche (#) $ Co. v Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry F9!"G A2#2 29" at 5"" per $ord
<i-erforce2 D2 Kean asserts 6&n6'nctions, "th ed2, $on8man, 99, at p2257 that the courts 8rant far more interim
in9unctions each year compared ;ith perpetual in9unctions2 See, for e1ample, R2 Scott 6ed27, S'*reme Co'rt 3ractice
<==> 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 99E7, Lol2, %t at pp2"05/"0" for a discussion of the 8eneral principles and
particular instances of in9unctions 8ranted2F99!G *2S2R2 4E22
022 See offman!La "oche (#) $ Co. v Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry F9!"G A2#2 29" at 5""/5"E 6D$7A
Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F2005G A2#2 04E at F99G, D$2i+id., at 4!22
052 Attorney!4eneral v %imes -ews*a*ers Ltd F992G A2#2 9 at 2E2 Accordin8 to the #ourt of Appeal in
Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F200G 32K2 02C at 040/04, a court may ha:e more than one purpose in a;ardin8
an in9unction2i+id.
042 A2A2S2 PucBerman, I'nterim remedies in quest of procedural fairnessJ 69957 "E @2$2R2 52" at p252E2The other
mem-ers of the court 6Denry $202 and Scott KaBer 027 a8reein8 ;ith his $ordshipHs 9ud8ment2
0"2 0ohn $e-eusdorf, IThe standard for preliminary in9unctionsJ 69!C7 9 Dar:2$2R2 "2" at p2"2"2 $ord DiplocB
in offman!La "oche (#) $ Co. v Secretary of State for %rade $ &nd'stry F9!"G A2#2 29" at 5E0 referred to it as an
Ie1ceptional remedy2J2000 <$ 5505"2
0E2 0ohn $e-eusdorf, o*. cit., n2E, at p2"2"2i+id., at para2C2
0!2 D2 Kean, o*. cit., n22, at p2252F200G ,<#A #i: "E2
0C2 See the comments of $ord Dennin8 in #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22 at 292*or e1amples of recent
case la;, see, )yrl'nd Smith A?S v %'+erville Smith Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 !!4, #AA 5ac5illan 5a0a@ines Ltd v ".C.-.
3'+lishin0 Co. Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 9A 8nited 3an!E'ro*e Comm'nications -, v )e'tsche 1ank A4 F2000G 2
K2#2$2#2 4E, #AA &ncase* Ltd v (ones, 200 <$ !940A -e/tcall %elecom 3lc v 1ritish %elecomm'nications
3lc, 2000 <$ 5520"5A .alker v ..A. 3ersonnel Ltd F2002G K2%2'2R2 E22
092 See Commonwealth of A'stralia v (ohn #airfa/ 69C07 4! #2$2R2 59A A'stralian Coarse 4rains 3ool v 1arley
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e E

(ite as! "
5arketin0 1oard 69C27 4E A2$2R2 59C2A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 20027,
Lol2 at p2"42
02 D2 Delany, I%ractice//interim in9unctions//adequacy of dama8es and other discretionary factorsJ 69957 "
)'+lin 8niversity Law (o'rnal 22C at p225E2Duman Ri8hts Act 99C, s222 See the comments of Dame ,li&a-eth
Kutler/Sloss in ,ena+les and %hom*son v -ews 4ro'* -ews*a*ers F200G ,2@2$2R2 0 at F00G2
2 F9!"G A2#2 59E2 The ,uropean #ourt of Duman Ri8hts in %he S'nday %imes v 8nited 2in0dom (-o.9) 6997
4 ,2D2R2R2 229 at 255 said that the dominant le8al principles as far as interim in9unctions are concerned ;ere
esta-lished in common la; in American Cyanamid.*or a -road discussion of this topic, see $2 #larBe, I'n9unctions
and the Duman Ri8hts Act 99C: 9urisdiction and discretionJ 620027 2 #20232 292
22 The present edition 6A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 20027, Lol27 follo;s
suit 6at p2""7, not;ithstandin8 the ad:ent of the #%R and ;hat is stated in the edition later 6at p2""7 concernin8
the importance of the case2 %erhaps it is note;orthy that the case is not discussed in detail as it ;as in editions
dealin8 ;ith Supreme #ourt %ractice 6up to 99972'2 $ei8h and $2 $ust8arten, I@aBin8 ri8hts real: the courts,
remedies, and the Duman Ri8hts ActJ 69997 "C #2$202 "09 at p2"52
52 #2 Nray, I'nterim in9unctions since American Cyanamid J 69C7 40 #2$202 50!2&m'tran Ltd v 8nca0ed
Cam*ai0ns Ltd F200G 2 All ,2R2 5C" at para222
42 F99EG All ,2R2 C"522000 <$ C4E022
"2 ilton v Earl of 4ranville 6C47 #r2 ? %h2 2C5 at 292A 4 ,2R2 49C at "022F200G 32K2 9E!2
E2 'n !C2 in the case of #ield v (ackson 6DicB2 "99A 2 ,2R2 4047 the court relied upon the ;eaBness of the case
of the plaintiff2 See A2 Nore, I'nterlocutory in9unctions//a final 9ud8ment=J 69!"7 5C @2$2R2 E!2 at p2E!42i+id., at
00!, 00C2
!2 *or e1ample, see 4lascott v Lan0 6C5C7 5 @y2 ? #r2 4" at 4""A 40 ,2R2 000 at 002A Shrews+'ry $ C "ly v
Shrews+'ry $ 1 "ly 6C"7 Sim2 6)2S27 40 at 42E/42!A E ,2R2 "9 at E"/EE2F2002G ,<D# 5!2
C2 %2 %rescott 69!"7 9 $232R2 EC at p2E92 Also, see Shrews+'ry $ C "ly v Shrews+'ry $ 1 "ly 6C"7 Sim2
6)2S27 40A E ,2R2 "92i+id., at F20G2
92 o*. cit., n2E, at p2"552F2002G 5 <2$2R2 "42 at FCG2 't is perhaps nota-le that in A v 1 3lc $ord <oolf #202, in
handin8 do;n the 9ud8ment of the #ourt of Appeal, refrained from mentionin8 American Cyanamid at all2
202 F9!"G A2#2 29"2F2005G 2 All ,2R2 5C2
22 i+id., at 55C, 5E02 Also, see, for e1ample, Cavendish o'se (Cheltenham) Ltd v Cavendish!.oodho'se Ltd
F9!0G R2%2#2 2C4, #A2i+id., at F25G2
222 F9E"G A2#2 2E9 at 525/52", 55, 542, 55C2i+id., at F05G2
252 *or e1ample, see Smith v 4ri00 Ltd F924G .2K2 E"", #AA ).C. %homson $ Co. Ltd v )eakin F9"2G #h2 E4E,
#AA 3a0e 7ne "ecords Ltd v 1ritton F9ECG <2$2R2 "!A Cavendish o'se (Cheltenham) Ltd v Cavendish!
.oodho'se Ltd (<=AB) F9!0G R2%2#2 254, #AA '++ard v ,os*er F9!2G 2 32K2 C4, #A2 Also this :ie; ;as
articulated in se:eral practitioner te1ts accordin8 to $addie 02 in Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2
C"5 at C"!2i+id., at F2G2
242 Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"5 at C"E2i+id.
2"2 See a-o:e n292)o'0las v ello Ltd F200G 32K2 9E! at 00C2
2E2 F9!EG 32K2 22 at 2926997 4 ,2D2R2R2 "52
2!2 See the comments of $addie 02 in Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"52i+id., at E2 See the
comments in '2 $ei8h and $2 $ust8arten, I@aBin8 ri8hts real: the courts, remedies, and the Duman Ri8hts ActJ
69997 "C #2$202 "09 at p2"542
2C2 F9!"G A2#2 29"22005 <$ 955"E", #A2
292 Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke F99EG All ,2R2 C"5 at C"" *er $addie 02i+id., at FG2
502 #learly the approach ;as a departure from pre:ious practice2 The case does not apply to Scotland2 See -.L
Ltd v .oods F9!9G <2$2R2 294 at 509/5022000 <$ 5505"2
52 F9!4G *2S2R2 522i+id., at FCG2
522 The same approach ;as clearly espoused in other cases2 *or e1ample, in Cavendish o'se (Cheltenham) Ltd v
Cavendish!.oodho'se Ltd F9!0G R2%2#2 254, #A2 Also, see R2 Scott 6ed27, S'*reme Co'rt 3ractice <==> 6S;eet
> 20 Thomson Reuters2

#20232 2004, 256Apr7, 55/" %a8e !

(ite as! "
and @a1;ell, $ondon, 99E7, Lol2, %t at p2"04 for a succinct discussion of the -alance of con:enience issue2
F2005G A2#2 04E2
552 'n fact Nraham 02 had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had made out a stron8 *rima facie case 6F9!"G
A2#2 59E at 40"72i+id., at F!4G2
542 F9!"G A2#2 59E at 40E2 'n 4'lf 7il (4reat 1ritain) Ltd v 3a0e F9C!G #h2 52! at 5552 %arBer $202 said that
there ;as -oth a serious question to -e tried and a *rima facie case2i+id., at F99G2
5"2 American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd F9!"G A2#2 59E at 40!2A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and
@a1;ell, $ondon, 20027, Lol2 at p2"42
5E2 i+id., at 40C2i+id.
5!2 i+id.*or e1ample, )o'0las v ello Ltd F200G 32K2 9E!A 4'inness 8), -orth America &nc v #le/itrace Ltd
F200G All ,2R2 6D27 0A &ncase* Ltd v (ones, 200 <$ !940A 1#& 7*tilas v 1lyth F2002G ,<D# 2E95A
Attorney!4eneral v 3'nch Ltd F2005G A2#2 04E2
5C2 *or e1ample, the pu-lic interest in E/*ress -ews*a*ers Ltd v 2eys F9C0G '2R2$2R2 24!22005 <$ !042
592 American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd F9!"G A2#2 59E at 4092F2005G 2 All ,2R2 5C at F0G and F04G2
402 i+id.A2 @ay 6ed27, Civil 3roced're 9::; 6S;eet and @a1;ell, $ondon, 20027, Lol2, %t at p2"42
42 F9E"G A2#2 2E92i+id.
422 F9!4G *2S2R2 522i+id., and referrin8 to Smithkline 1eecham v 4enerics 82 Ltd, unreported, (cto-er 25, 200,
0aco- 02
452 A2A2S2 PucBerman, I'nterim in9unctions on the meritsJ 6997 0! $232R2 9E at p29!2o*. cit., n24, at p2552
442 *or e1ample, see a-o:e n2C at !A $ord Dennin8 in #ellowes $ Son v #isher F9!EG 32K2 22 at 50 said that
the case had perple1ed the profession2*or e1ample, see 5ac5illam 5a0a@ines Ltd v ".C.-. 3'+lishin0 Com*any
Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 9A )yrl'nd Smith A?S v %'+erville Smith Ltd F99CG *2S2R2 !!4A -e/tcall %elecom 3lc v 1ritish
%elecomm'nications 3lc, 2000 <$ 5520"5A Consolidated 7il Ltd v American E/*ress 1ank Ltd, unreported,
0anuary 2, 2000, #A 6and a:aila-le throu8h $e1is)e1is7A &ncase* Ltd v (ones, 200 <$ !940A &ntercontinental
Ener0y Ltd v (owitt, 200 <$ "E0!4!A London "e0ional %rans*ort v %he 5ayor of London F200G ,<#A #i:
49A 1.#.&. 7*tilas v 1lyth F2002G ,<D# 2E952
4"2 F9!EG 32K2 22 at 402*or instance, see ". v 5inistry of A0ric'lt're, #isheries and #ood F999G 32K2 E,
#A2
4E2 F9!9G *2S2R2 55! at 5!2/5!520ohn $e-eusdorf, o*. cit., n2E, at p2"402
4!2 i+id., at 5E", 5E9/5!02)ota-ly A2A2S2 PucBerman, o*. cit., n2442
4C2 *or e1ample, %homas 5arshall (E/*orts) Ltd v 4'inle F9!9G *2S2R2 20C2#ompare the :ie; of 02 %hillips in
I'nterim in9unctions and intellectual property: a re:ie; of Cyanamid v Ethicon in the li8ht of Series 5 F99!G 02K2$2
4CE2
,)D (* D(#+@,)T
> 20 Thomson Reuters2