Lough Neagh Exploration Ltd. v. Morrice [1997] IEHC 145 (8th August, 1997)

Lough Neagh Exploration Ltd. v. Morrice [1997] IEHC 145 (8th August, 1997)

Mandatory injunction sought by Minister refused as not exceptional; interlocutory injunction sought by Plaintiff refused as balance of convenience favours Defendants and damages are adequate remedy; Plaintiff's undertaking as to damages insufficient to safeguard Defendants; relief sought in vague terms cannot be policed by Court.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 145
Parties
Plaintiff: North West Exploration Plc; First Defendant: Dr. Susan O'Reilly; Second Defendant: Ulster Natural Resources Limited; Third Defendant: Rocky Mountain Geological Services Inc.; Fourth Defendant: Minister for Energy and Natural Resources
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunctions
Outcome
Both applications refused
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Fiduciary Duties, Confidential Information, Restraint of Trade, Mandatory Injunction, Balance of Convenience
Company Law Contract Law Equity Natural Resources Law Interlocutory Injunctions Fiduciary Duties Confidential Information Restraint of Trade +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North West Exploration Plc

Plaintiff

Dr. Susan O'Reilly

First Defendant

Ulster Natural Resources Limited

Second Defendant

Rocky Mountain Geological Services Inc.

Third Defendant

Minister for Energy and Natural Resources

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mandatory injunction should be granted to Minister for delivery of seismic tapes
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain Defendants from obtaining petroleum prospecting licence
  3. 3 Whether first Defendant breached fiduciary duties and confidentiality agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Mandatory injunction sought by Minister refused as not exceptional; interlocutory injunction sought by Plaintiff refused as balance of convenience favours Defendants and damages are adequate remedy; Plaintiff's undertaking as to damages insufficient to safeguard Defendants; relief sought in vague terms cannot be policed by Court.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused

Orders

  • Minister's application for mandatory injunction refused
  • Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunction refused