A tricky subject

It is generally taken to be the case that when the court grants a permanent injunction to restrain the breach of a property right (or to restore rights where a mandatory injunction is required) and save where there has been physical damage to the claimant’s land, or property, damages for economic loss, for example diminution in value of the claimant’s property, will not usually arise for consideration. After all, the court’s permanent order, whether in prohibitory, or mandatory terms, deals on a “once and for all” basis with the breach, whether the claim is for trespass, breach of covenant, nuisance, or actionable interference with an easement. But as has been said before in another context (Porgy and Bess) it ain’t necessarily so that the grant of the injunction is the end of the matter. As the prayer in Particulars of Claim and Counterclaims invariably states, the claimant seeks an injunction and damages. This applies in claims