Quia Timet Injunction

● A type of interlocutory injunction to prevent a wrong that is about to happen

Def ● Injunction to the claimant’s right s not yete occurred but there is a
fear that it would be happen
● May be interlocutory - during/before trial
● Perpetual - granted until very end
● Prohibitory - prevent smthg mandatory (undo smthg)

Categories 1. No hurt to C but is threatening and intending so C to do works which

will render irreparable harm to him / his property if carries to
completion ie development that would cause landslide to your
property
2. Claimant fully recompensed both at law & equity
a. Already brought in court & damages granted
b. But earlier action of D can lead to future causes of action

How differs ● It is different since this injunction deals with a cause of action which
is yet to occur
● Court is faced with the challenge to identify how serious the fears of
the C must be and how grave the suspected damage is
● Prove to court how serious the fear ie what are consequence or
suspected damage if does not granted
● Requirements described as :

1. A strong probability
○ Case : Att Gen v Manchester Corp [1993]
○ A person seeking an injunction to restrain an alleged future
nuisance be it public/ private must show a strong case of
probability that the apprehended mischief will arise
○ D of corp proposed idea to est a small-pox hospital on land
near a cemetery
○ Fear : cause inhabitants and persons frequenting cemetery
○ Held : D failed to show probability that danger would ensue
so injunction was refused (failure to show danger )

2. Proof of imminent danger

3. Proof that apprehended damage will , if it comes to be very
substantial

Case : Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris

● Injunction for future but mandatory in nature
● Court is readily to grant mandatory injunction as asking D to do
smthg (possibility cause more harm to D > P’s protection needed)
● 4 principles by Lord Upjohn :
○ Claimant must show very strong probability that grave
damage will accrue to him in the future
○ Damages will not be an adequate remedy if such damage
does not happen, applying the general principle of equity
○ Cost of doing work
○ Where D had acted wantonly and quite unreasonably, he
may be ordered to do positive work if expense to him is
○ Court must see what D has to do
 ● In this case, the neighbour (owner) constructed and caused landslip
to P’s land & damages has been granted & payment made but the
fear on P that it will cost more landslip in the future
● Held : tell D what you want them to do if it deals with QT injunction
ie what measures taken

Case : Harold Stephen & Co ltd v