Equitable Discretion in Determining Relief Case Study - 1

Equitable Discretion in Determining Relief - Case Study Example According to Lord Upjohn in Redland Bricks v Morris4 the grant of a mandatory injunction will depend upon the individual circumstances of a particular case; unlike a negative injunction, it can never be â€Å"as of course†. In the case of Charrington v Simons and Co5, Buckley J granted an injunction but suspended it for three years and in stating his reasons, he has highlighted the issue of fairness and justice to both parties in granting the remedy that was sought: The underlying issue of fairness and justice as the basis for determining the grant of a mandatory injunction was similarly elucidated in the case of Sheperd Homes v Sandham7 where Meggary J stated that relevant grounds would also include â€Å"the triviality of damage to the Plaintiff, and a â€Å"disproportion between the detriment that the injunction would inflict on the defendant and the benefit that it would confer on the plaintiff.† The stated goal, according to Meggary J was a â€Å"fair result† and this involved the â€Å"exercise of judicial discretion.†Ã‚   In the matter of an interlocutory injunction, the purpose behind the issue of such an injunction is to protect the rights of the parties until the time of final disposition of the case. The guiding principles of fairness and justice to both parties were laid out in the case of American Cyanid Co v Ethicon9, which is one of the most significant cases, since it overturned earlier criteria for assessing the merit of an interlocutory injunction, i.e, to examine the probabilities that a prima facie case had been established for the grant of a permanent injunction.  Ã‚