EQUITY & TRUST I

LAWS 3330

ERINFORD INJUNCTION
 DEFINITION
• Also known as Injunctions Pending Appeal.
• A stay order until the appeal is heard.
• The power of the court is discretionary.
• It is an order granted to a plaintiff who had failed, at first
instance, either in his main action or in his application for an
interlocutory injunction, and had appealed against the said
decision.
• In other words, the court has jurisdiction on dismissal of an
application for an interlocutory injunction to grant the
unsuccessful applicant an injunction pending an appeal against
the dismissal.
• This type of injunction is a prohibitory order granted to restrain
the other party from interfering with the subject matter of the
dispute pending the appeal or restraining the successful party
from acting on their success pending appeal.
 CONT.
• It is an injunction to preserve the status quo pending disposal
of any appeal.
• Erinford Properties Ltd v. Cheshire County Council [1974]
2 All ER 448: The exercise of jurisdiction by a court of first
instance restraining the successful litigant from enjoying the
fruits of his success until the correctness of the decision in
question has been tested through the appellate process.
• Following factors are necessary to consider in granting:
 Whether there are special circumstances;
 Probability that the order refusing an injunction may be
reversed;
 Whether successful party ought to be free to act;
 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy;
 Would the appeal be rendered nugatory (less significant).
 POSITION IN MALAYSIA
• Pending appeal, the court can grant Erinford Injunction for a limited
time only; and applied by Plaintiff when his application for
interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
• Tiu Shi Kian v. Red Rose Restaurant [1984] 2 MLJ 313:
Ps/Applicants operated a nightclub and restaurant in licensed
premises in Hotel Shangrila. Ds were the owners of Red Rose
Restaurant and also controllers of Hotel Berjaya Sdn Bhd, which
owned the Hotel Shangrila. Ps application for an injunction to
restrain the Ds from disturbing Ps’ quiet use and enjoyment was
dismissed. Ds had agreed to permit Ps continued operation of the
premises but they found out that the premises were locked.
Accordingly, Ps applied for an Erinford Injunction as their original
application pending appeal. The order was served and Ds failed to
comply. Ps instituted proceedings against Respondents for civil
contempt of court in breaching the order.
• Held: The Respondents (owner of the restaurant and D) should be
found guilty of contempt of court and fined accordingly.
 CONT.
• Celcom (Malaysia) Bhd v. Inmiss Communication Sdn
Bhd [2003] 3 MLJ 178: P applied for an Erinford Injunction
to restrain D from taking further steps in Winding up
Petition pending hearing of P’s appeal to the Court of
Appeal against the decision made by the High Court
dismissing P’s application for an injunction to restrain D
from filing a winding up petition against P.
• Held: Although the court had earlier dismissed P’s
application for injunction, it still had jurisdiction to hear the
application for an Erinford injunction and to grant the same.
THANK YOU