In the event that you are considering to apply for an injunction restraining an individual or company from, among others, competing with your company or business, infringing your trademarks or copyrights, divulging confidential information or trade secrets belonging to your company, selling the shares of a company and dealing with the assets of that company including creating charges and so forth, it is instructive to refer to the principles of injunction as stated below:
The cases of American Cynamid v Ethicon and Keet Gerald Noel John v Mohd Noor have laid down the following principle in order for an injunction to be granted:-
a) There must be a serious question to be tried
b) Whether damages would be adequately compensated the Plaintiff
c) On which side does the balance of convenience lie
d) If all factors above are evenly balanced; should the status quo be maintained
The facts of a case at hand must be fitted into the above-stated requirements.
For instance, an injunction could be applied in a given scenario as follows:
a) There is indeed a serious question to be tried whereby the parties are disputing over the actual consideration that should be paid for the sale of the companies and matters relevant to the transaction;
b) If the Defendant continues to mismanage and run the companies in a manner which is detrimental to your company; and the Court subsequently is to order the Defendant’s companies to be returned to the Plaintiff- no amount of damages could make up for the loss suffered;
c) Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff as the sale of the companies would cause injustice to the Plaintiff; and
d) Status quo of the Plaintiff is difficult to be maintained when no amount of damages are adequate for the purpose of reinstating the original position of the Plaintiff.