Countess Walker & Anor v Jacob Mount trading as Take To Removals

On a without-notice application for interim protection, the court may make a holding injunction where the evidence shows a strongly arguable claim and the balance of convenience and justice supports securing and preserving the subject matter of the dispute.

The order should protect the position pending an inter partes hearing. It may restrain sale, disposal, dissipation or damage while leaving open delivery of the property, where appropriate. The respondent must be protected by prompt service, a return date, and the usual undertaking in damages.

The claimants sought urgent interim relief concerning household goods collected by a removals business during a proposed house move. The claimants alleged that, after payment of the agreed removal price, the defendant demanded substantial further sums before delivering the goods and threatened to sell, abandon, destroy or dispose of them.

The application was made without notice. The court considered whether the matter should instead await a hearing on notice, whether interim protection was necessary, and whether the evidence justified an injunction preserving the goods pending further proceedings.

1. Application granted. The court made a holding injunction restraining the defendant from selling or contracting to sell the property, authorising or permitting its sale, disposing of or dissipating it, or damaging or permitting it to be damaged.
2. Although the court had not heard the defendant and made no findings of fact, the without-notice procedure was properly used. The prior letter before claim and communications between the parties showed that court proceedings had been contemplated, but the interests of justice required immediate protection before the defendant could be heard. The defendant was protected by directions for service and a return-date hearing.
3. The evidence disclosed clear communications threatening sale, abandonment, destruction or disposal of the property. The dispute was not, at this stage, about ownership. On the material available, there was a strongly arguable claim, and the balance of convenience and justice strongly favoured securing the property and preventing its dissipation or damage.
4. The injunction was protective rather than final. It did not require delivery of the property, but expressly permitted the defendant to arrange for the property to be supplied undamaged to the claimants. Any further substantive order was left for a later hearing or agreement.
5. The claimants gave the usual undertaking in damages and an undertaking to serve the papers. The order included liberty to apply, on notice, to vary or discharge its provisions.