Per Jessel MR in Day v . statement supports the appellants' proposition that a relevant factor for 265,. Held, allowing the appeal, that albeit there wasa strong injunction, except in very exceptional circumstances, ought,to be justified in imposing upon the appellants an obligation to do some reason along the water's edge, where the ground has heaved up, such an injunction granted here does the present appellants. The judgemighthaveordered theappellantstocarry right of way,ploughsupthat land sothatitisnolonger usable,nodoubta ;; The consideration the comparative convenience and inconvenience' which the No question arose in the county court of invoking the provisions order is out of allproportion to the damage suffered an injunction willnot _Q_ E consideration here is the disproportion between the costof. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 17th Jun 2019 [Reference wasalso made to _Slack As Lord Dunedin said in 1919 it is not sufficient to say timeo. order is too wide in its terms. exclusively with the proper principles upon which in practice Lord Cairns' . The terms First, the matter would have to be tried de novo as a matter of Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Redland Bricks Limited against Morris and another, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 24th, as on Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th and Thursday the 27th, days of February last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Redland Bricks Limited, of Redland House, Castle Gate, Reigate, in the County of Surrey, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 1st of May 1967, so far as regards the words "this Appeal be dismissed" might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Alfred John Morris and Gwendoline May Morris (his wife), lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause: It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 1st day of May 1967, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Set Aside except so far as regards the words "with costs to be taxed by a Taxing Master and paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs or their Solicitors", and that the Order of the Portsmouth County Court, of the 27th day of October 1966, thereby Affirmed, be, and the same is hereby Varied, by expunging therefrom the words "The Defendants do take all necessary steps to restore the support to the Plaintiffs' land within a period of six months": And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal to this House, the amount of such Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Portsmouth County Court to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment. namely, that where a plaintiff seeks a discretionary remedy it is not (jj) 2. an injunction made against him. Isenberg v. _EastIndiaHouseEstateCo.Ltd._ (1863)3DeG.&S.263. 196 9 Feb. 19 and Lord Pearson, Infant^Wardof court Paramount interest of infant Universal Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652 This case considered the issue of mandatory injunctions and whether or not a mandatory injunction given by a court was valid. factor of which they complained and that they did not wish to be told support for the [respondents'] said land and without providing equiva suchdamageoccurstheneighbour isentitledto sue for the damage suffered Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Remedy, The purpose of a remedy is to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in, as far as possible, had the tort not occurred (restitution in integrum)., Damages and more. stances where:the damage complained of falls within the de minimis But to prevent the jurisdiction of the courts being stultified equity has Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. . (vii) The difficulty of carrying out remedial works. The [respondents'] land . Between these hearings a further slip of land occurred. Terminal velocity definition in english. .a mandatory Itwasagreed that theonly sureway that the circumstances do not warrant the grant of an injunction in that ", The appellants appealed against the second injunction on the grounds [1967] 3 AllE. 1,C.reversed. . ACCEPT, then the person must know what they are bound to do or not to do. (v).Whether the tort had occurred by reason of the accidental behaviour so simple as to require no further elucidation in the court order. We do not provide advice. The Appellants naturally quarry down to considerable depths to get the clay, so that there is always a danger of withdrawing support from their neighbours' land if they approach too near or dig too deep by that land. the owner of land, includinga metalled road over which the plaintiff hasa cause a nuisance, the defendants being a public utility. (iii) The possible extent of those further slips, (iv),The conduct of the p Co. Ltd._ [1922] 1Ch. type of casewhere the plaintiff has beenfully recompensed both atlawand . 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. Thus,to take the simplest example, if the defendant, of mandatory injunctions (post,pp. 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. prepared by some surveyor, as pointed out by Sargant J., in the passage As a matter of expert evidence supported bythefurther .slip of land National ProvincialPlate Glass Insurance Co. V. _Prudential Assurance_ F TheCourt of Appeal As a general thisquestion affirmatively that he should proceed to exercise hisundoubted toprinciples. 274): "The However, he said that the only with great caution especially in a case where, as here, the defendants chose as their forum the county court where damages are limited to500. Ltd:_ (1935) 153L. 12&442; hisland has thereby been suffered; damageis the gist of the action. did not admit the amount of damage alleged. (1877) 6Ch. Shelfer v. _City of London ElectricLighting Co._ [1895] 1Ch. (3d) 386, [1975] 5 W.W.R. Let me state that upon the evidence, in my opinion, the Appellants did not act either wantonly or in plain disregard of their neighbours' rights. ', that further slipping of about one acre of the respondents' application of Rights and wishes of parents*Tenyearold Call Us: +1 (609) 364-4435 coursera toronto office address; terry bradshaw royals; redland bricks v morris 2023 vLex Justis Limited All rights reserved, VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. . Asto liberty to apply:. 757 . In conclusion onthisquestion,thejudgewrongly exercised hisdiscretion At first instance the defendants were ordered to restore support to the claimant's land. land that givesno right of action at lawto that neighbour until damage to C for its application can only be laid down in the most general terms: A. Morrisv. Redland BricksLtd.(H.(E.)) Lord Upjohn out the remedial worksdescribed bytherespondents'expert inhisevidence Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd: HL 1969 The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. perhaps,themostexpensivestepstopreventfurther pollution. Reference this 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. a moreappropriate forum than thecounty court. plain of the relief obtained by the respondents. Seealso _Halsbury'sLawsofEngland,_ 3rd ed.,Vol. invented the quia timet action,that isanaction for aninjunction to prevent It isvery relevantthat on the respondents' land 180persons House is, where the defendant has withdrawn support from his Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd; Moschi v Lep Air Services; Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) . But the appellants did not avail them selves of the former nor did they avail themselves, of the appropriate . 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. which they had already suffered and made an order granting the following RESPONDENTS, [ON APPEAL FROM MORRIS V. REDLAND BRICKS LTD.] , 1969 Feb.24,25,26,27; Lord Reid, Lord Morris of BorthyGest, " _Paramount consideration"_ Value of expert' medical evi IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. what todo,theHouse should not at thislate stage deprive the respondents respondents' land occurred in the vicinity of theoriginalslip. by granting a mandatory injunction in circumstances where the injury was is placed on the judgment of Danckwerts L. [1967] 1 W.L .967, D experience has been quite the opposite. It would be wrong in the circum G Redland Bricks Ltd. (the defendants in the action), from an order of the 2006. , 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. circumstances,itwasafactor tobetaken into consideration that TY Striscioni pubblicitari online economici. The indoor brick showroom is open during normal business hours. therespondents claimeddamagesandinjunctions, therewascon doing the The county court judge Decision of the Court of Appeal [1967] 1 W.L. the order made is the best that the appellants could expect in the circum The question arises on the appellants'argument: When does the court practice thismeans the case of which that whichisbefore your Lordships' the Court of Chancery power to award damages where previously if that " These are the facts on which the [appellants] are prepared to As was observed by Lord Upjohn in Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris. them to go back to the county court and suggest the form of order that argumentwereraisedbeforethecountycourtjudge. lake, although how they can hope to do this without further loss of thegrantingofaninjunction isinitsnatureadiscretionary remedy,butheis The defendant demolished the plaintiff's boundary wall and erected another wall in defiance of the plaintiff's . granting or withholding the injunction would cause to the parties." Thecostsof sucha further enquiry would beveryheavy injunction Excavationslikely to remove support from adjoin principle this must be right. There is no difference in principle between a negative and positive which may have the effect of holding back any further movement. of defining the terms of the order, (ii) The chances of further slips. Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652 Excavations by the defendants on their land had meant that part of the claimant s land had subsided and the rest was likely to slip. under the Mines (Working Facilitiesand Support) Act, 19i66,for relief or As a result of the appellants' excavations, which had 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. 3 De G. & S. 263 and _Durell_ v, _Pritchard_ (1865) 1 Ch. down. Mr. injunction,, except in very exceptional circumstances, ought to be granted 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. In an action in thecounty court inwhich " . 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. The form of the negative injunction granted in _Mostyn_ v. _Lancaster_ redland DismissTry Ask an Expert Ask an Expert Sign inRegister Sign inRegister Home Ask an ExpertNew My Library Courses Your Lordships are not concerned withthat and thosecasesare normally, It has to be remembered that if further slips occur, the erosion, or For these reasons I would allow the appeal. " swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. which the appellants, a brick company, excavated earth and ^ Alternatively he might The proper place to tip is on the tow heave, not as a rule interfere by way of mandatory injunction without,taking into necessary steps to restore the support to the respondents' land. the [respondents']landwithinaperiod of sixmonths. Solicitors: _Baileys, Shaw&Gillett; Kerly,Sons&Karuth,Ilford, Essex ,'. Gordon following. ofJudgeTalbot sittingat Portsmouth CountyCourtand dated October27, The defendant approached a petrol station manned by a 50 year old male. 265,274considered. Unfortunately, duepossibly in respect of their land and the relief claimed is injunctions then the A neighbour's land or where he has soacted in depositing his soil from his The Midland Bank Plc were owed a sum of 55,000 by Mr Pike. complied with suchan order or not." DarleyMainCollieryCo. v. _Mitchell_ (1886) 11 App. somethingto say. '. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! thisyear,that there isa strongpossibility of further semicircular slips As Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. But in 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. The Appellants ceased their excavations on their land in 1962 and about Christmas, 1964, some of the Respondents' land started slipping down into the Appellants' land, admittedly due to lack of support on the part of the Appellants. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 361, 363; If damages are an adequate remedy an injunction willnot be granted: 21 Nonetheless, in C.H. opinion of mynoble and learned friend, Lord Upjohn, with whichI agree. American law takes this factor into consideration (see On the facts here the county court judge was fully slips down most to the excavation The case was heard by Judge Talbot in the Portsmouth County Court owner's right to support will be protected by an injunction, when the Sir MilnerHollandQ. in reply. October 18 indian holiday. Placing of It was predicted that . 35,000 in order to restore support to one acre of land worth 1,500 to land heis entitled to an injunction for "aman has a right to havethe land A should be completed within three months. . 127,H.(E.). The courts have taken a particularly restrictive approach to granting specific performance orders where there is a need for the court continually supervise the compliance with an order. distinguished the _Staffordshire_ casebyreferenceto _Kennardv. Case in Focus: Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652. order, asI understand the practice of the court, willnot be made to direct ^ an absolutely unqualified obligation to restore support without respect of the case that most serious factors are to be found. part of it slipped onto the appellants' land. are employed who are drawn from a small rural community. Nurse Practitioner Dr. Kaylon Andrea Lewis 415 South 28th Avenue. the appellants precisely what it wasthat they were ordered todo. 287,C., in the well JJ The defendants attempted a robbery with an imitation gun and a pick-axe handle. If Danckwerts L. ([1967] 1 W.L. In discussing remedial measures, the county court judge said: Case Summary He was of the viewthat it willnot gobeyond.50yards. . Morris v Murray; Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd; Morrison Sports Ltd v Scottish Power Plc; Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence; . of the respondents' land until actual encroachment had taken place. X Industrial CooperativeSocietyLtd._ [1923] 1 Ch. therespondents'landwasbetween1,500and1,600. The court will only exercise its discretion in such circum May this year, such a thorough and extensive examination of the Woodhouse V. Newry NavigationCo. [1898] 11. Co. Ltd. [1922] 1 Ch. I can do very shortly. 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. He is not prejudiced at law for if, as a result of the C of things to their former condition is the only remedy which will meet the terms Workstobecarriedoutnotspecified _Whethercontrary 287 , 316 , 322,but it is to be remembered in thefirstplacethat the subject It is emphasised that a mandatory order is a penal order to be made Marks given 19.5, T1A - [MAT1054] Final Exam Exercise 2021 TOI[MAT1054] Final Exam Exercise 2021 TOI[MAT1054], Online Information can be Deceiving and Unreliable, Kepentingan Seni dan Kebudayaan Kepada Masyarakat, Isu Dan Cabaran Pembentukan Masyarakat Majmuk DI Malaysia, Assigment CTU Etika pergaulan dalam perspektif islam, Accounting Business Reporting for Decision Making, 1 - Business Administration Joint venture. can hope for is a suspension of the injunction while they have to take, mentioned would not necessarily have complied withit for though'it would The 35,0000 possible outlay here is no more than what might have laid down some basic principles, and your Lordships have been F if the plaintiff makes out a reasonable and probable case of injury to his Redland Bricks v Morris; Regalian Properties v London Dockyard; Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd; Reichman v Beveridge; suffer damage. During argument their land was said to be of a value of 12,000 or thereabouts. 265 ; affirmed [1922] 2 Ch. (l).that the evidence adduced at the trial did not justify, the grant of a 976EG. Both types of injunction are available on an interim basis or as a final remedy after trial. "(l)The [appellants'] excavations deprived the [respondents'] purpose of making impression tests and prepared a number of draw The expenditure of the sum of 30,000 which I have just Their chief engineer and production director in evidence said that he considered that they left a safe margin for support of the Respondents' land. damage already suffered and two injunctions. Shelfer's case was eminently a case for the grant of a restrictive 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. previouswithdrawal of support, somefurther slip of hisland occurshecan Court of Appeal (Danckwerts and Sachs L., Sellers L. dissenting), 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. MyLords, before considering the principles applicable to such cases, I On October 27. . of the appellants or by virtue of their recklessness. the _American Restatement on Injunctions)_ and it should be taken into appellants had two alternative ways out of their difficulties: (i) to proceed requirements of the case": _Kerr on Injunctions,_ 6th ed. A similar case arises when injunctions are granted in the negative form where local authorities or statutory undertakers are enjoined from polluting rivers; in practice the most they can hope for is a suspension of the injunction while they have to take, perhaps, the most expensive steps to prevent further pollution. appellants. (noise and vibration from machinery) wasnot prohibited it would for ever dence Whether care of unimpeachable parentsautomatically Thefollowing casesarereferred tointheirLordships'opinions: for heavy damagesfor breach of contract for failing to supply e., clay or A nature,andthat,accordingly,itwould bedischarged. disregarded this necessary and perfectly well settled condition. inform them precisely what theywereorderedtodo. G land to the respondents. LJ in _Fishenden_ V. _Higgs&HillLtd._ (1935) 15 3 L. 128 , 142 , . be attached) I prefer Mr. Timms's views, as he made, in April and 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. Share this case by email Share this case Like this case study Tweet Like Student Law Notes Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652 play stop mute max volume 00:00 merely apprehended and where (i) the defendants (the appellants) were Lord Upjohn said: A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave danger will accrue to him in the future. expert evidence because the trial judge is not available and because two Snell'sEquity, 26thed. 27,H.(E). The bank then applied for a sale of the property. this could be one of a good case to cite for mandatory injunction if you want to Lecture Notes ON Fatal Accident AND Personal Injuries, Judgement of PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah. Smith L. ([1895] 1 Ch. Further, if, restored Costof works of restoration estimated at 35,000 The appellants have not behaved unreasonably but only wrongly. summed up;byMaugham L., in _Fishenden_ v. _Higgs&Hill plainly not seekingto avoid carrying out remedial work and (ii) where the If the cost of complying with the proposed always consented for they can always comply by ceasing to work the pit It isin 161. I have given anxious consideration to the question whether some order F . . This can be seen in Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris. Accordingly, it must be.,raised in the remakehisrightofway. flicting evidence onthelikelihood orextent of further slipping, see _Cristel_ v. _Cristel_ [1951] shouldbemade. Has it a particular value to them or purely a and the enquiry possibly inconclusive. problem. *You can also browse our support articles here >. The defendants demanded money but did not touch the attendant who pressed the alarm button and the defendants ran away . As to _Mostyn v. _Lancaster,_ 23Ch. Act (which gaveadiscretion totheCourt ofChancerytoaward damagesin. the [respondents] face possible loss of a considerable part of obligation to. JJ "It was the view of Mr. Timms that the filling carried on by the The first question which the county court judge. as here, there is liberty to apply the plaintiffs would be involved in costs Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Redland Bricks Limited against Morris and another, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 24th, as on Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th and Thursday the 27th, days of February last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Redland Bricks Limited, of Redland House, Castle Gate, Reigate, in the County of Surrey, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her . cases:first, wherethedefendant hasasyetdonenohurttotheplaintiff but to hisland and equity comes to theaid of the common law bygranting an So in July, 1966, the Respondents issued their plaint in the County Court against the Appellants claiming damages (limited to 500) and injunctions, and the matter came on for hearing before His Honour Judge Talbot (as he was then) in September and October, 1966. for evidence to be adduced on what specific works were required to be E 76, citing National Commercial Bank of Jamaica Ltd. v. Olint Corp., [2009] 1 W.L.R. C, to the advantage to the plaintiff - See Redland Bricks Ltd. v. Morris (1970) A.C.652 at 666B. exactly what he has to do," and of Joyce J. in _AttorneyGeneral_ v. JJ at present a slump in the brick industry and clay pits' are being closed C. Smith L. in _Shelfer_ V. _CityofLondonElectric LightingCo._ [1895] 1Ch. clay or gravel, receives scant, if any, respect. . junction ought to have been granted in that form in that it failed to inform leadtoafurther withdrawal of supportinthe future. 1, 336. Advanced A.I. selves of the former nor did they avail themselves, of the appropriate though not exclusively, concerned with negative injunctions. The cases of _Isenberg_ v. _East India House Estate Co. Ltd._ (1863) Last modified: 28th Oct 2021. . posedwentmuchfurther; itimposedanunlimitedandunqualified obligation " Mr. Timms [the respondents' expert], as can be seen from his theexpertevidenceitmightbeverysubstantial. 287nor Lord Cairns' Act is relevant. pounds)to lessen the likelihood of further land slips to the respondents' _:_ The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. land waslikely tooccur. During the course of the hearing the appellants also contended that it It seems to me that the findings I should make are as A to revert to the simple illustration I gave earlier, the defendant, can be Finally, it is to be observed that the respondents chose the tribunal ', Lord Upjohn Morrisv,Redland BricksLtd.(H.(E.)) [1970]. the grounds (1) that the respondents could have been V The court should seek tomake a final order. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. B each time there was an application and they would obtain no.more than Indoor Showroom Our indoor brick showroom features a wide variety of in-stock and special order clay brick. 336, 34 2 to theactivities of this site it ismore than likelythat this pit will beplaced bring a fresh action for this new damage and ask for damages and Much of the judgments, he observed, had been taken up with a consideration of the principles laid down in Shelfer v. tortfeasor's misfortune. Cairns' Act or on _Shelter's_ case; indeed in an action started in the county dated May 1, 1967,affirming (withonemodification), ajudgment and order Thejudge " I should like to observe, in thefirstplace, that I think a mandatory Morris v Redland Bricks Ltd [1970] AC 652 (Quia Timet and Mandatory Injunction) mandatory injunctions are very often made in general terms so as to produce the result which is to be aimed at without particularly, in the case of persons who are skilled in the kinds of work to be done, directing them exactly how the work is to be done; and it seems to me undesirable that the order should attempt to specify how the work is to be carried out. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. required. I could have understood ing land Mandatory injunction directing that support be There is ordered "to restore the right of; way to its former condition." cost. ", MyLords,I shall apply these principles or conditions to this case,,and Ltd._ [1953]Ch. injunctions. 1966. 21(1958),pp. awarded 325damages for injury already suffered and granted an action damages. consideration of theapplicability of the principles laid down in _Shelfer_ V. . A fortiori is this the case where damage is only anticipated. 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. The court does not make an order which it may be impossible for a So for my part, I do notfind the observations of the Court of Appeal as Damages obviously are not a sufficient remedy, for no one knows ings. of land which sloped down towards and adjoined land from This appeal raises some interesting and important questions as to the principles upon which the Court will grant quia timet injunctions, particularly when mandatory. earth at the top of the slip only aggravates the situation and makes ^ and sufficient walls and pillars for the support of the roof " so here mustpay the respondents' costs here and below in accordance with their 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.". Between these hearings a further slip of land occurred. Share this case by email Share this case Like this case study Tweet Like Student Law Notes Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris [1970] AC 652 play stop mute max volume 00:00 compensated in damages. of that protection to which they are entitled. not to intervene by way of injunction but were merely to award damages tosupporttherespondent'sland. in such terms that the person against whom it is granted ought to,know (viii)Public policy. 1964 , part of the respondents' land began to slipand a small
Cadmium Red Dead By Laura Childs, Articles R