 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Cases showing that interlocutory injunctions are not restricted by the Siskina approach
(which requires them to be ancillary to enforcement of a legal or equitable cause of
action in the same proceedings) include those where it has been held that injunctions
should be granted or could in principle be granted:-
(a)
to restrain the prosecution of foreign suits;
(b)
to restrain a bankrupt from leaving the jurisdiction in aid of enforcement by the
trustee of the bankrupt's duty to supply information under the Insolvency Act
1981;
(c)
to restrain a director and shareholder of a company in liquidation from leaving
the country in aid of an order requiring his attendance for oral examination
under the Companies Act 1985;
(d)
on the application of a Chief Constable, to prevent dissipation of money in a
bank account allegedly obtained by fraud;
and,
(e)
to assist a hospital authority to perform its statutory duty, express and implied,
to treat patients, maintain security and provide a therapeutic environment.
Notes
Eg, British Airways Board v Laker Airways Ltd [1985] AC 58, 81, 95, where there would be no
action pending before the English courts.
Morris v Murjani [1996] 1 WLR 848. There was a pending application to commit the bankrupt for
contempt, but the trustee was not seeking to enforce any cause of action or legal or equitable right
against the bankrupt.
In re Oriental Credit Ltd [1988] Ch 204, 207-8.
Chief Constable of Kent v V [1983] QB 34; and Chief Constable of Hampshire v A Ltd [1985] QB
132, where the plaintiff had no cause of action but only certain public duties.
Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] 1 WLR 1590.
|
 |
|