What is Equity and Trusts Law

Equity and Trusts Law

Equity and Trusts Law
What is Equity and Trusts Law
Within the course of a court trial, it may be important for a party to seek remedy in the form of an injunction. The remedy is sought to, in case the applicant feels that his or her rights for a fair hearing have been compromised. Interim injunctions are separate legal entities within the substantial claim of the larger legal dispute. It should be understood that interim injunctions are essential in an event where one or two parties wish to maintain a status quo. The status being sought ensure that the parties in a legal dispute do not act outside the scope of the court jurisdiction.
An interim injunction is usually important if the other party that is accused is capable of causing damage to the claimant. Before issuing an injunction, the court must be provided with sufficient evidence that the respondent is posing dangers to the applicant’s life and property. It should also be understood that the breach of an interim injunction amounts to imprisonment and huge fines . An interim injunction is one of the human rights enshrined in the United Nations human rights commission that seeks to ensure that the rights of people during the court proceedings are respected.
Human Rights Act of the year 1998
The human rights act was established in 1998 and allows the UK citizens to defend their rights courts based in the United Kingdom. The Act also calls upon public institutions to treat everyone in the United Kingdom equality by upholding fairness, dignity, and respect. Since the inception of the human rights act of 1998, many UK citizens have continued to achieve justice and fairness in the courts . All the residents in Britain can use the human rights Act even if they are not British citizens. At the same time, the human act of 1998 can also be used by organizations as a form of liberty in respect to acquiring justice in business jurisprudence. Integral to the human rights act of 1998 is the aspect of the threshold test. Arguably, the threshold test seeks to ascertain that the parties seeking an injunction deserves to be given the interim injunction. Moreover, the threshold test should confirm that the other party has acted in bad faith and is a threat to the applicant. It is upon the court to make the most viable decision out of the existing dilemma . The aggrieved party should as well as the defendant’s position.
The threshold test
While the human rights act of 1998 came as a viable legal procedure in ensuring that the rights of the parties in court are respected, the act may at times compromise the ability of the defendant’s freedom of expression. If the applicant seeks an interim injunction before the defendant has compiled the evidence, the defendant may not be able to access some of the important evidence that would strengthen his or her defense. For instance, if the applicant applies for barring the defendant from accessing the scene of the crime, the defendant will be unable to garner facts about the incident.
Moreover, the threshold test exposes the defendant’ privacy, and in a way, the applicant is able to access information that he or she might use against the defendant. In any court of law, all the parties must be given equal opportunity. However, the threshold test compromises the freedom of the defendant to express his or her views in a sober and open-minded manner. It is imperative to ascertain that the Human Rights Act of the year 1998 has significantly affected the award of interim injunctions. The human rights act has imposed a threshold test that should be passed before the court makes a resolution of granting an interim injunction. Important to ascertain is that the threshold test poses substantial effects to the way in which the defendants express their right to freedom.
One of threshold conditions that should be satisfied by the court order in granting the injunction is that the court should articulately pass the order regarding the prima facie findings. According to this condition, the court must be fully satisfied that there exists a substantial dispute brought forward by the plaintiff. The court must prove the existence of the case and that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief brought forward . As such, the plaintiff should articulately present substantial evidence to satisfy the court that the case really exists.
Another threshold test that the court order should satisfy before offering an interim injunction is that the plaintiff should satisfy the court that irreparable injuries should be suffered following the failure in granting an injunction. As such, the court must be fully satisfied that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injuries if the injunction is not offered. The court should justify that the injury causes is a material one and that it cannot be compensated through the use of damages.
Granting of the injunction is based upon particular circumstances and facts. In some instances, the defendant may make use of the plaintiff property until such a situation that the property becomes irreparable. Following such a material fact, interim relief should be offered since the plaintiff may experience hardship if an injunction is not granted for the favor of the plaintiff. As stated earlier, granting of a temporary injunction is dependent upon the prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the irreparable injury. Tentative to the interim order is the findings of the prima facie. A temporary injunction depends on the aspect of the status quo whereby the legal scenario remains until there is a viable resolution to the matter at hand. So that the matter does not turn into either infructuous or a fait accompli the judges have to ensure that they conduct through research on the accusations. It is also worth noting that the intention of interlocutory injunction is, to ensure that the freedom of all the court stakeholders is granted without any prior demands.
Another threshold test that should be satisfied by the court before the offering of the injunction is that the balance of convenience should be at a position of favoring the plaintiff or the applicant. In other words, the court should be fully satisfied that the applicant would suffer significant hardships if the injunction is not granted.
As a result, the legal procedure governing the issues at hand demand that before the interim injunction is granted, the Court should look into all the considerations of the assertions in regards to their merits and demerits. In this case, if the merits outweigh the demerits then the injunction might be granted .
Interim order or injunctions are passed based on prima facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed temporarily to aid in preserving the status quo till the matter is ultimately solved, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to offer protection to the plaintiff following the injury encountered after the violation of the rights.
The role of the interim injunction
The primary role of the injunction provided by the court order is to curtail the occurrence of particular behaviors. The main intention of the injunctions is to ensure that the violated rights are rectified. The injunctions can be either perpetual or temporal depending on the regularity of the rights violation. The injunctions can also be classified as ether mandatory or prohibitory. The mandatory injunctions are the ones that need a behavior while the prohibitory injunctions prohibit the occurrence of a particular behavior .
An injunction is used to connote the equitable and fair remedy that is provided by the court order to trigger a given agency or party to deter itself from engaging in particular activities . The granting of temporary injunction therefore dependent on the satisfaction of three conditions. The irreparable injury, the balance of convenience, and the prima facie case are among the three conditions that should be satisfied for the court order to grant an interim injunction . An interim injunction may either require a party to refrain or to do a specific action before the trial begins. In this case, the intent of the interim injunction is to avoid cases of injustices before the trial begins. According to the human rights act of 1998, the following considerations must be made before granting an interim injunction;
Whether the applicant’s assertions warrant serious questions can be tried in a court of law. Notably, the court should only consider serious situations that affect the legality and the jurisprudence of the pending case to a large extent. This means that if the case presented before the attorney does not make any serious claims, it is vague, and as such, it should be dropped. The applicant is therefore not granted an interim injunction. However, if the claim is so strong that it convinces the court of its severity, the judges will automatically grant the applicant an interim injunction .
The court should also consider whether the anticipated damages form an adequate remedy for the case at hand. This means that even if the case is pending the application for an interim injunction calls for a special sitting which would allow the court examine the case filed and ascertained its severity. As such, if the assertions by the applicant’s accusations are serious and the damages are so gross that they would threaten the life of the applicant then the court automatically grants the injunction . However, if the court assertions are mere accusations and do not meet the threshold, the interim injunction should be dismissed.
It should also be understood that whenever an interim injunction is granted, the applicant is required to provide a written undertaking that stipulates the damages. In this, case the applicant should sign a document stipulating that he or she is fully aware of the accusations made towards the defendant. Notably within the course of the trial, the court may realize that the interim injunction was given in bad faith and therefore the defendant needs to be compensated for the damages caused. The signed documents should act as evidence that the injunction was granted and as a result, the defendant should claim a wring legal action. At this point, the defendant should sue both the defendant and the judge who granted the injunction. To avoid legal confusion it is always important that the judges consider the legal claims carefully .
Some of the legal practitioners have argued that the United Kingdom courts have over relied on the interim injunction clause as stipulated in the human rights Act of 1998. However, this clause is misleading and may even cause more damage than settling court disputes. When there is no objectivity and fairness in the court, it is most likely that the court is biased and will tend to cling on one side of the parties involved. This creates mistrust and loss of loyalty in the country’s legal institutions. To serve justice equally this clause needs to be amended and replaced with better terms and procedures of addressing legal issues.
Overall, the thresholds test while giving the interim injunction is an important part of the Human rights Act and as a result, there is a need to come up with a threshold test that the defendant rights are not compromised. The effectiveness of any court is the ability to provide fairness and justice in all the hearings irrespective of the people affiliations. It is against this background that the human rights act of 1998 was formulated.

Amos M, ‘The Second Division In Human Rights Adjudication: Social Rights Claims Under The Human Rights Act 1998’ (2015) 15 Human Rights Law Review

Burdon M and Sloper K, ‘Granting Emergency Interim Injunction Pending Trial In The GSK Generic Patent Litigation: Smithkline Beecham Plc And Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd V Apotex Europe Ltd, Neolab Ltd And Waymade Healthcare Plc: [2002] EWHC 2556; [2003] EWCA (Civ) 137’ (2004) 1 Journal of Generic Medicines
David Hayton J, ‘Thoughts On Future Trust Law Developments’ (2016) 22 Trusts & Trustees
Lee R, ‘Recent Trends In Equity And Trusts Law In Hong Kong: A Review Of Notable Developments In 2013’ (2014) 20 Trusts & Trustees

Gretton G, ‘Trusts Without Equity’ (2000) 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly
Hayton D, ‘Trusts & Equity – STAR Trusts’ (2012) 1998 Amicus Curiae
Gottlieb S, ‘US Couple Files Malpractice Lawsuit Against Doctor For Embryo Mix Up’ (1999) 318 BMJ
Mitchell C and Hayton D, Hayton and Mitchell, Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies (Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
Pattinson S, ‘The Human Rights Act And The Doctrine Of Precedent’ (2014) 35 Legal Studies
Starmer K, ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and The Human Rights Act 1998’ (2001) 1 Legal Information Management