Longe v Bank of Scotland Plc

An interim injunction must identify conduct that requires restraint and must be expressed with sufficient precision to define what the respondent may or may not do. The court should not grant injunctive relief where the applicant identifies no present threat or conduct requiring intervention. A general injunction against the world, framed in unspecific terms, is impermissible. An application may be dismissed on that procedural basis without determining unresolved issues concerning the merits, fraud allegations or issue estoppel, and without prejudice to a renewed application if circumstances change.

Henry Longe applied for an interim injunction restraining Bank of Scotland plc from enforcing an order made by District Judge Wright on 6 June 2019. The order had determined issues on the pleadings and enabled the Bank to seek possession of property owned by Mr Longe. Mr Longe alleged that the order had been procured by fraud.

The court considered that there were difficult unresolved questions about duplication between the pleaded matters and those determined by the District Judge, and about whether issue estoppel could arise following a summary determination. The central issue for the application was whether there was any present conduct by the Bank that could properly be restrained.

1. The application was dismissed. The court did not determine the Bank’s substantial objections to the claim or the unresolved questions concerning fraud, duplication of issues and issue estoppel.
2. An interim injunction must be directed to identifiable conduct. It must be tightly focused on what the respondent may and may not do. Where the applicant cannot identify any present threat to the relevant property or any conduct requiring restraint, the issues underlying the grant of interim injunctive relief do not arise and the court should refuse the injunction.
3. A general injunction against all the world, preventing unspecified interference with the applicant’s affairs or business, is impermissibly broad and unspecific. The court could not articulate any conduct to be enjoined in the terms sought.
4. The dismissal was based solely on the absence of anything that could presently be enjoined. It was without prejudice to a renewed application if circumstances changed.
5. There was no order as to costs. Although the claimant had not obtained the relief sought, he had made a respectable effort to persuade the court that an injunction might be appropriate.