Kinsley v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

On a renewed application for permission to appeal an interlocutory injunction decision, the applicant must show an error of law or that the judge reached a conclusion no reasonable judge could reach. Where there is a serious issue to be tried, the court applies the American Cyanamid principles, including the adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. A different judge’s earlier assessment does not establish appellate error. A wide injunction affecting the lawful exercise of powers by a large police force may properly be refused where it would unjustly fetter those powers and damages provide an adequate remedy.

The appellant sought permission to appeal Mitting J’s refusal to reinstate an interim injunction previously granted by Langstaff J. The proposed order would have restrained harassment by officers of the Metropolitan Police, without the geographical limitation in the earlier order, and would therefore have affected approximately 32,000 officers.

The civil trial was delayed while related criminal proceedings and an appeal were pending. Hooper LJ treated the serious issue to be tried requirement as satisfied for the permission application. The central questions were whether Mitting J had erred in applying the interim-injunction principles and whether his conclusion was one that no reasonable judge could reach.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application had no real prospect of success.
2. For the limited purpose of the application, there was a serious issue to be tried. The court therefore approached the injunction question by reference to the principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited Co [1975] AC 396, including whether damages would adequately compensate the applicant, whether the respondent would be adequately protected by an undertaking in damages, and the balance of convenience.
3. The respondent could not be adequately compensated by an undertaking in damages. The appropriate approach was consequently to apply the balance of convenience.
4. Mitting J was entitled to conclude that the proposed order would unjustly and improperly fetter the lawful exercise of powers by the approximately 32,000 officers of the Metropolitan Police. His view that damages would be an adequate remedy if the appellant ultimately succeeded was also open to him.
5. Langstaff J’s earlier and different assessment showed only that two judges could reasonably reach different conclusions on the discretionary issue. It did not demonstrate an error of law or a conclusion that no reasonable judge could reach. The order was therefore: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused. The court upheld Mitting J’s refusal to reinstate the interim injunction.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Mitting J refused the application to reinstate an interim injunction previously ordered by Langstaff J.