 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Secondly, since 1977 when The Siskina was decided, the strictness of the approach
there adopted has been increasingly eroded and confined by several lines of authority.
No longer is it accurate to say that interlocutory injunctions will only be granted in
cases where such grant is ancillary and incidental to a pre-existing cause of action and
needed to preserve the status quo pending the court's determination of the relevant
substantive legal or equitable rights. As Lord Nicholls
pointed out :-
"Lord Diplock's categorisation of the circumstances in which alone an interlocutory
injunction may be granted by the English court has been queried by, among others, Lord
Keith of Kinkel, Lord Scarman, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord
Browne-Wilkinson in Castanho v Brown & Root (UK) Ltd [1981] AC 557, 573, South
Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij "De Zeven Provincien" NV [1987] 1 AC
24, 44 and Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334,
340-341, 343."
Notes
Ibid at 308.
|
 |
|