Gegg v Gurrie

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Staine, J.
• Judgment Date: 06 January 1979
• Docket Number: Action No. 210 of 1978
• Date: 06 January 1979

Supreme Court

Staine, J.

Action No. 210 of 1978

Gegg

and

Gurrie

Appearances:

Dean Barrow for the plaintiff

Mrs. L. M. Young-Barrow for the defendant.

Injunction - Application — Interlocutory injunction — Nuisance — Defendant constructed pier and commercial marina — Whether the plaintiff had to establish a prima facie case — Finding that the applicant needed only to establish that there was a serious issue to be tried — Finding that on the facts of the case it appeared that if the status quo was to be preserved then damages were not an appropriate remedy — Injunction remedy.

Staine, J.

1 This case concerns an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant, his servants or his agents from continuing to build and maintain a pier and commercial marina in contravention of law and so as to be a nuisance to the plaintiff.

2 The Writ commencing this Action was filed on the 30th day of October 1978 and the motion for an injunction was filed on the same date. In support of the motion two affidavits have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and one on behalf of the defendant.

3 Briefly the affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff allege that the building of the pier and marina are in contravention of the law and constitute a nuisance to the plaintiff. The defendant, by his affidavit, disputes this. I have also had the benefit of the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff who referred the Court to the case of American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Ltd. [1975] 2 W.L.R., a decision of the House of Lords delivered by Lord Diplock and concurred in by four law lords.

4 This case has somewhat changed the law in regards to interlocutory injunctions in that it was previously thought that to succeed in an application for an interlocutory injunction an applicant had to prove to the Court that he had a prima facie case. The Cyanamid decision makes it clear that all the Court has to be satisfied of is whether there is a serious issue to be tried, and that the action is not frivolous or vexatious. Once that point is reached the Court must then decide where the balance of convenience lies and attempt to maintain the status quo. If this can be done by awarding damages to the plaintiff, he will not be granted an injunction. If this cannot be done, then the Court looks at the possible harm to the defendant in enjoining him from doing something which, when the action is finally tried, it may be found...