Hawkens & Ors. v Mliner (Civil Cause 3019 of 2003) [2003] MWHC 94 (28 December 2003)
Where an injunction is already in place, the proper remedy for breach is not a further injunction but committal proceedings for disobedience. A consent order does not operate as an estoppel unless it is a final judgment.
- Citation
- [2003] MWHC 94
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Tony Hawkins and Others; Defendant: Edith Mliner
- Court
- High Court of Malawi
- Jurisdiction
- Malawi
- Judgment Date
- 28 December 2003
- Case Number
- Civil Cause 3019 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory Application to Dissolve Ex Parte Injunction
- Outcome
- Application to dissolve second injunction granted
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Consent Orders, Estoppel
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tony Hawkins and Others
Plaintiff
Edith Mliner
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Dissolve Ex Parte Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a second injunction after a consent order was made
- 2 Whether the consent order operates as an estoppel against further injunctions
- 3 Whether the proper remedy for breach of injunction is a further injunction or committal proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
Where an injunction is already in place, the proper remedy for breach is not a further injunction but committal proceedings for disobedience. A consent order does not operate as an estoppel unless it is a final judgment.
Court Disposition
Application to dissolve second injunction granted
Orders
- Second ex parte injunction dissolved
- Plaintiffs to pursue committal proceedings if there is breach of injunction
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment