header-logo header-logo

29 May 2015 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7654 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Lessons to be learnt

nlj_7654_francis

How has Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd been treated at first instance, asks Andrew Francis

A key question arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Fen Tigers Ltd [2014] 1 AC 822, [2014] 2 All ER 622 was how trial judges would decide whether the proper remedy for breach of property rights was an injunction, or damages in lieu.

Fen Tigers stated two key principles. First, where there is a breach of property rights the prima facie position is that an injunction should be granted. Second, as to the choice between an injunction and damages, the outcome should depend on all relevant facts, circumstances and arguments. Overlying both principles is the point made by the Supreme Court in Fen Tigers that there should no longer be slavish adherence to the “good working rule” in Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co Ltd [1895] 1 Ch 287, [1891-4] All ER Rep 838. While there were differences between the justices of the Supreme Court as to what might be relevant

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll