Supreme Court
Action No. 232 of 1980
12th December, 1980
Moe, J.

Mr. P. Zuniga for the Plaintiff/Applicant
Mr. G. Godfrey for the Defendant

Application for an interlocutory injunction - need to establish a strong prima facie case - injunction not appropriate to restrain a debtor from parting with his property.

J U D G M E N T

In this matter the Plaintiff seeks an order that the Defendants be restrained by injunction until judgment in the action or further order from disposing by sale or otherwise of certain goods which the Plaintiff, in an Affidavit supporting this application, says belongs to the Defendants.

The principles to be followed in deciding whether or not an interlocutory injunction is to be granted are set out in 21 Halsbury Laws (3rd Edition) pp 364 to 368 and in various cases. It appears that to establish the right to an injunction the applicant must establish a strong or clear prima facie case. In Smith v Grigg Ltd. (1924) 1 K.B. at 659 Lord Atkin stated "A Plaintiff who applies for an interlocutory injunction --- must establish to the satisfaction of the court a strong prima facie case that the right which he seeks to protect in fact exists.".

The Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim endorsed on the Writ filed herein alleges that the Defendants have broken a contract between the Plaintiff and Defendants as a result of which the Defendants owe the Plaintiff various sums amounting to $342,371.70. The specially endorsed Writ therefore does not disclose any right of which the injunction is being prayed in aid or any wrong threatened or committed which the injunction is to prevent from happening or continuing. The Plaintiff claims simply that the Defendants are indebted to him.

It is set out again in 21 Halsbury Laws (3rd Edition) at page 399 that an injunction will not be granted to restrain a Defendant who is alleged to be a debtor from parting with his property. If Plaintiff wishes to prevent the disposition of goods, he must show a specific right in the property and that they are in danger of being lost. Robinson v. Pichesing (1881) Ch. D.660.

The application is accordingly refused. The Defendants to have their costs.

----------OO----------