Milner v Milner Laboratories [2000] JRC 145A (24 July 2000)

Milner v Milner Laboratories [2000] JRC 145A (24 July 2000)

The ex parte injunctions were set aside because the necessary conditions for granting relief without notice were not satisfied. There was insufficient evidence of urgency or risk of asset dissipation. On reconsideration, only limited injunctions were justified, as damages would be an adequate remedy and the representor failed to show a serious risk that damages would not suffice. Disclosure orders were not warranted absent fraud or dishonesty.

Citation
[2000] JRC 145A
Parties
Representor: Ellen Milner; Respondent: Milner Laboratories Limited; Respondent: Kevin Ronald Leech; Respondent: Richard John Smith; Respondent: Stuart William Sim
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
24 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunction / Hearing to Vary or Discharge Interim Injunctions
Outcome
Interim injunctions set aside and replaced with limited injunctions subject to cross-undertaking in damages.
Legal Topics
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Ex Parte Injunctions, Shareholder Protection, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Company Law Injunctions Equity Breach of Fiduciary Duty Ex Parte Injunctions Shareholder Protection Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ellen Milner

Representor

Milner Laboratories Limited

Respondent

Kevin Ronald Leech

Respondent

Richard John Smith

Respondent

Stuart William Sim

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Injunction / Hearing to Vary or Discharge Interim Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ex parte interim injunctions were properly granted against the respondents
  2. 2 Whether the injunctions should be set aside or varied
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the representor

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte injunctions were set aside because the necessary conditions for granting relief without notice were not satisfied. There was insufficient evidence of urgency or risk of asset dissipation. On reconsideration, only limited injunctions were justified, as damages would be an adequate remedy and the representor failed to show a serious risk that damages would not suffice. Disclosure orders were not warranted absent fraud or dishonesty.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions set aside and replaced with limited injunctions subject to cross-undertaking in damages.

Orders

  • Injunctions in paragraphs F and H, and amended A and B, re-imposed by consent, restraining loans, guarantees, transactions, and use of company assets for legal fees involving the respondents or their associates.
  • Representor to provide the usual cross-undertaking in damages as a condition of the injunctions.