Singhson Ltd & Ors v Kanendran

On an application for a mandatory interim injunction, the governing test is the same as for a prohibitory injunction. The court must consider whether there is a serious question to be tried and then assess the balance of convenience, including the adequacy of damages, the cross-undertaking in damages, the relative strength of the cases where appropriate, and preservation of the status quo. A mandatory order may be harder to obtain because it is more likely to cause irremediable prejudice or disrupt the status quo, not because a different legal test applies. The court should not resolve critical disputed facts or law at the interlocutory stage. For an actionable obstruction of a private right of way, the interference must be substantial. The relevant question is whether the right can still be exercised substantially and practically as conveniently as before.

The claimants sought a mandatory interim injunction requiring the defendant to remove four storage containers from land behind adjoining shops in Hounslow. The containers were alleged to interfere with rights of way and easements, including rights to stand vehicles for loading and unloading. The defendant disputed the application, sought its dismissal, and alternatively asked for transfer of the claim to the County Court.

The parties agreed that there was a serious issue to be tried. The court therefore had to determine where the balance of convenience lay and whether the proceedings should remain in the High Court.

1. Interim injunction. The application was dismissed. The principles in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 apply to mandatory and prohibitory interim injunctions. A mandatory injunction is not subject to a different test, although the court may be more cautious because such relief is more likely to cause irremediable prejudice or disturb the status quo.
2. The claimants had to establish title to the easements, their scope, and substantial interference. The court did not need to resolve disputed facts or law at the interim stage. The parties accepted that there was a serious question to be tried.
3. In assessing the balance of convenience, damages did not clearly favour either side. The court considered the competing practical inconvenience, the difficulty of quantifying loss, the effect of removing the defendant’s containers, the cross-undertaking in damages, delay, and the status quo. Taken together, those factors favoured refusing the order.
4. For a private right of way, an obstruction must be substantial to be actionable. The court accepted the propositions drawn from B&Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd (2001) 81 P&CR, including that the question is whether the grantee can exercise the right substantially and practically as conveniently as before. Those propositions had been approved in Emmet v Sisson [2014] EWCA Civ 64.
5. Transfer. Having regard to the claim’s value, the issues, convenience and the applicable transfer guidance, the claim was ordered to be transferred to the County Court.

First-instance decision. No earlier or appellate decision is stated in the judgment.