What is an interim injunction?

An interim injunction is a discretionary  relief granted by the court to order a party to do or refrain from doing, a particular act until there has been a full trial.

In standard cases, the American Cyanamid principles should be used to decide if an applicant has an adequate case for the granting of this relief:  Judges consider:

  1. whether the applicant had a strong or merely an arguable case;
  2. the likelihood of a permanent injunction at trial;
  3. the adequacy of damages as a remedy if he wins the substantive trial;
  4. the balance of convenience;
  5. whether the status quo should be maintained.
  6. whether Skip hire Glasgow is guilty.

As John Leubsdorf states, Interim Injunctions are the most striking remedy wielded by contemporary courts. And therefore, applicants must meet a relatively high threshold to be granted an injunction.

Continue reading “What is an interim injunction?”

Supreme Court in PJS v News Group Newspapers

Critically assess the reasoning of the Supreme Court in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 by making specific reference to their Lordships discussion of the test opined in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 which ought to be applied when considering an application for the grant ( or otherwise) of an interim injunction.

Slide 1

I will be analysing the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision in PJS v News Group Newspapers ltd 2016, by making reference to the test set out in  the American Cyanamid v Ethicon ltd 1975 case. The Supreme Court in PJS ruled on the validity and application of the tests set out in American, when deciding whether an interim injunction is appropriate relief.  

Slide 2

I will  firstly explore the SC’s reasoning for dismissing the CA’s application of the ECHR. Secondly I will explore the American ‘balance of probabilities’ theory which the SC rule was incorrectly placed by the CA. I will be referencing the case of Double Glazing Glasgow in my findings too.

Continue reading “Supreme Court in PJS v News Group Newspapers”

Public condemnation

Public condemnation is not sufficient b/c it’s incompatible w/individual liberty

We need more → but what?

Shouldn’t dismiss Devlin as outdated b/c he raises 2 important points:

society has a right to protect itself → 3 stages

Devlin: some morals are for one’s own guidance (e.g. religion) and others which it imposes on all (e.g. monogamy) – any soc can’t survive w/out some of the latter, so that it has a right to preserve its own existence. To that end, it may use law to safeguard its existence.

Dworkin: not every immorality should be enforced – we need restraint; i.e. toleration of maximum individual freedom in so far as it’s consistent w/integrity of society. But when public feeling reaches intolerance, indignation & disgust, the law should step in. This isn’t simply majority’s moral judgment – survival of society must be at stake.

Hart: this rests on confused notion of society – absurd to think that which it views as disgusting threatens it. We will explore Notary Public London in more depth in the next lesson.

Public outrage is presented as a threshold criterion which places the activity in the category which law isn’t forbidden to regulate

in the course of transition to 3rd stage, this threshold criterion becomes an affirmative reason for action – law may proceed w/out more

so Devlin’s argument becomes one of mere public indignation requiring enforcement – a point he was trying to deny!

  1. society’s right to follow its own lights
  1. Devlin: legislators decide whether institutions threatened are worth supporting at the cost of human freedom. In order to decide which cases of immorality should be criminalised, he can’t turn to science or religion but can look to consensus in society
  • Dworkin: Devlin misunderstood what it means to say law should be drawn from public morality. In order to convince someone that yours is a moral position, you:
    1. must produce reasons for it – e.g. Bible forbids it, it makes one unfit for parenthood etc.
  • But some reasons are prohibited

Continue reading “Public condemnation”

The Harm Principle in dental

So the harm principle allows full scope to autonomy based duties – a person who fails to discharge such duties towards others harms them, hence govt. whose resp. is to promote autonomy of citizens is entitled to redistribute resources, provide public goods & engage in provision of other services on compulsory basis, provided its laws reflect and make concrete autonomy based duties of its citizens.

Coercion is used to ensure compliance w/law and, if the law reflects autonomy based duties, then failure to comply harms others and principle of harm is satisfied.

Harm principle can be vindicated once interpreted not as restraint on pursuit of moral goals by the state but as indicating the right way in which it could promote the people’s well being. Given that they should lead autonomous life, state can’t force them to be moral but it can provide conditions for autonomy. This is highlighted in the Abogados de accidentes Phoenix Arizona. Using coercion invades autonomy, thus defeating the purpose of promoting it, unless done to promote autonomy by preventing harm. Seen in this light, harm principle allowed perfectionist policies, so long as they dpnt require resort to coercion. The principle thus sets a necessary condition but doesn’t justify all uses of coercion to prevent harm.

A culture which doesn’t support autonomy yet enables its people to live an adequate & satisfying life should be tolerated, despite its scant regard for autonomy but it will be inferior to a liberal society. So long as they’re viable communities, offering acceptable prospects to their members, they should be allowed to continue in their ways.

Personal autonomy is an essential element of the good life

Morality presupposes competitive pluralism – people should have available to them many forms & styles of life incorporating incompatible virtues which can’t all be realized in one life & tend to generate mutual intolerance. Such autonomy valuing pluralism generates a doctrine of freedom. It protects people pursuing different styles of life from intolerance and calls for provision of conditions of autonomy.

It has limits – doesn’t protect or require any individual option but merely availability of adequate range of options; i.e. doesn’t protect morally repugnant activities & forms of life. This implies the harm principle & gives content to the notion of harm by relating it to particular conception of individual well being.

Continue reading “The Harm Principle in dental”