National Landlords Association v Stimpson

On an application to continue an interim injunction granted without notice, the court must first be satisfied that the claimant raises a serious issue to be tried concerning the substantive relief sought. The injunction must not impose a greater burden on the defendant than necessary, and the court must consider both parties’ interests. A claimant alleging trespass to land must show possession, or a right to possession superior to that of the defendant. An equitable interest or mere right of property is insufficient. Material non-disclosure on a without-notice application engages both the protective and disciplinary functions of the rule. Where the non-disclosure is deliberate and serious, the court may discharge the original injunction and refuse fresh relief.

The claimant sought continuation of parts of an interim injunction granted by Jackson J against the defendant. The order restrained the defendant from entering or approaching premises occupied by the Southern Private Landlords Association and from contacting the claimant’s or the association’s employees except through solicitors.

The claimant relied on alleged trespass, unlawful interference with goods and unlawful interference with its economic interests. The defendant disputed the claimant’s causes of action and alleged material non-disclosure on the without-notice application. The central issues were whether there was a serious issue to be tried supporting the injunctions and whether the claimant had made full and frank disclosure.

1. The application was dismissed and the injunction granted by Jackson J was discharged. The court also refused to grant fresh injunctions.

2. Under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court’s jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief must be exercised with regard to the substantive relief sought. An interim injunction should not burden the defendant more than necessary. The court must consider the interests of both claimant and defendant, applying the guidance in Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1.

3. The claimant had shown a serious issue as to possible unlawful interference with the server, if title to it had passed under the agreement. It had not, however, shown a serious issue as to a claim in trespass to the premises. Trespass protects a possessory right. The person entitled to sue is the person in possession, or someone with a superior right to possession. The premises remained in the possession of SPLA, and no evidence established that the claimant had obtained an effective assignment or a superior possessory title.

4. The alleged unlawful interference with economic interests did not provide a properly arguable foundation for restraints on approaching the premises or contacting employees. The precise scope of that tort was uncertain, and no authority or evidence established that the proposed conduct amounted to the tort. The geographical restraint would also have prevented the defendant travelling by bus along the adjoining A259.

5. The claimant had failed to disclose material matters, including serious challenges to the validity of the agreement, opposition within SPLA, failures concerning employee consultation, the transfer of members’ data, and the fact that the claimant already possessed a copy of the membership database. The court applied the principles concerning full and frank disclosure explained in Brink's Mat Limited v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350 and Fitzgerald v Williams [1996] QB 657. The non-disclosures were deliberate and sufficiently serious to require discharge of the injunctions and refusal of fresh relief.

The judgment records an earlier interim injunction made by Jackson J on 18 July 2008. This was an application to continue that order, not an appeal.