HRH Prince Fahad Bin Sultan Al Saud & Anor v David Eden & Anor

An interim injunction should not be granted where damages provide an adequate remedy and the asserted risk depends on an un evidenced breach of duty. A court will not anticipate a remote contingency by restraining receivers who are exercising their enforcement functions, particularly where no real risk of misconduct is demonstrated. Privacy is a protected human right, but it does not by itself justify preventing enforcement of security following default.

The claimants sought urgent interim relief against receivers appointed by a bank following default under a secured loan. The claimants accepted the loan, security, default and appointment of the receivers, but objected to the receivers taking possession of the property. They relied principally on possible damage to valuable possessions and intrusion into private papers and personal belongings.

The court assumed that there was a serious issue to be tried. The central question was whether interim relief was justified, in particular whether damages were an adequate remedy and whether the asserted risks warranted restraining the receivers’ activities pending an inter partes hearing.

1. Application refused. The application for interim interim relief was refused.
2. The court assumed, without deciding, that there was a serious issue to be tried. The application was nevertheless clear-cut because damages were an adequate remedy. Any damage caused by a breach of the receivers’ duties could be remedied by a claim against the receivers in the ordinary way.
3. The feared damage to antiques, ornaments, sentimental items and private papers depended on the receivers acting in breach of their duties. The receivers’ primary duty was to realise assets and recover sums due to the lender. There was no evidence that misconduct of the alleged kind was likely. The contingency was remote and did not justify an injunction sought on very short notice.
4. The asserted privacy interest did not justify interim relief. Privacy was a protected human right, but enforcement of security following default necessarily involved the claimants losing exclusive control of the property. The claimants had to bear that consequence of default.
5. The court also noted that injunctions of this kind should be sought only in really clear-cut cases where the need was demonstrable. The evidence and documentation did not establish such a need.