Editor's Note

Welcome to our second offering on Injunctions. I am delighted to report that we had some very interesting and stimulating responses to our first edition from litigants who had been on the receiving end of an injunction and offered some valuable insight as to how the Courts do not necessarily always get it right.

The thing that stands out to me from the cases we have selected for this edition is the amazing accessibility and responsiveness of our judiciary to applicants who need to act in a matter of hours to prevent irretrievable damage. In the Barclays v Guardian case the fact that Barclays were able to extract the Judge from his bed at 2:30 am and in a matter of a couple of hours secure and serve the injunction on the Guardian speaks volume for the flexibility of our judicial system. The fact that the full hearing of the order took place the following day at 3:30pm also shows how our Judges will bend over backwards to ensure that the rights and interests of the respondents will also be protected when ex parte orders are granted.

From my experience in obtaining and defending injunctions in various parts of the world including Asia, USA and Europe, the English jurisdiction is by far the most flexible and creative in tailoring injunctive remedies to prevent both litigants and third parties from acting in a way that would permanently prejudice one side or the other and to hold the status quo pending an orderly hearing of a dispute. Quite understandably therefore the rest of the world continues to look to the English Courts as leading the way in developing the law and practice relating to injunctive remedies. Long may it last!

Finally a sincere vote of thanks to my colleague Richard Trainer who has selflessly poured over the last three months' injunctions in order to prepare the delicacies we have offered up in this edition of Mishcon Injunctions.

Continue to Next Page »