Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lim Teong Qwee JC
• Judgment Date: 07 September 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 209
• Docket Number: Suit No 828 of 1993 (Summons in
• Date: 07 September 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1993
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jimmy Yim (Drew & Napier)
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 209
• Defendant Counsel: Salem Ibrahim (Harry Elias & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Less risk of injustice if injunction continued,Factors to consider,Civil Procedure,Application to discharge interim mandatory injunction,Interim injunction granting substantially the whole of the relief sought,Injunctions

On 19 April 1993 the plaintiff commenced this action and the same day an order was made ex parte for an interim injunction on the usual undertaking as to damages that:

The first defendant do perform the master contract made between the plaintiff and the first defendant dated 11 February 1993 by publishing the plaintiff`s advertisements in the first defendant`s newspapers in accordance with the schedule and the format as agreed between them until trial or further order.

The first defendant applied for an order that the injunction be dissolved and for consequential orders and on 28 May 1993, I dismissed the application. On 4 June 1993, the first defendant applied for further argument and on 8 July 1993, I held that I had no jurisdiction to hear further argument. A notice of appeal against the whole of my decisions given on 28 May 1993 and 8 July 1993 was filed and I have delivered grounds of decision in respect of my decision given on 8 July 1993. I now deliver the grounds of decision in respect of the order made on 28 May 1993 notwithstanding that more than one month has elapsed since the order was pronounced before the notice of appeal was filed.

The principles

In American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd , Lord Diplock said, at p 408:

... unless the material available to the court at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at the trial, the court should go on to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the interlocutory relief that is sought.

As to that, the governing principle is that the court should first consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to a permanent injunction, he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant`s continuing to do what was sought to be enjoined between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages in the measure recoverable at common law would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff`s claim appeared to be at that stage. If, on the other hand, damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff in the event of his succeeding at the trial, the court should then consider whether, on the contrary hypothesis that the defendant were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to do that which was sought to be enjoined, he would be adequately compensated under the plaintiff`s undertaking as to damages for the loss he would have sustained by being prevented from doing so between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages in the measure recoverable under such an undertaking would be an adequate remedy and the plaintiff would be in a financial position to pay them, there would be no reason upon this ground to refuse an interlocutory injunction.

These general principles have been applied in Singapore. They apply to interlocutory injunctions generally whether prohibitory or mandatory.

In Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport & Ors , which was concerned with a mandatory injunction, Mustill LJ said at p 906:

In my judgment [the test] is correctly stated in 24 Halsbury`s Laws of England(4th Ed) para 948 in a passage headed `Mandatory injunctions on interlocutory applications`. That passage reads:

`A mandatory injunction can be granted on an interlocutory application as well as at the hearing, but, in the absence of special circumstances, it will not normally be granted. However, if the case is clear and one which the court thinks ought to be decided at once, or if the act done is a simple and summary one which can be easily remedied, or if the defendant attempted to steal a march on the plaintiff ... a mandatory injunction will be granted on an interlocutory application.`

One of the cases cited in support of that passage is the decision of Megarry J in Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham [1970] 3 All ER 402, [1971] Ch 340; in the course of his judgment Megarry J said ([1970] 3 All ER 402 at 412, [1971] Ch 340 at p 351):

`Third, on motion, as contrasted with the trial, the court is far more reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction than it would be to grant a comparable prohibitory injunction. In a normal case the court must, inter alia, feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial it will appear that the injunction was rightly granted; and this is a higher standard than is required for a prohibitory injunction.`

It was

...