quia timet injunction

Quia timet injunctions are court orders which restrain the occurrence of an actionable wrong by a defendant in circumstances where the intended defendant threatens to act contrary to the legal rights of the claimant, or threatens to repeat unlawful conduct. The relief is granted on an interim (temporary) basis. This form of injunction remains in force until further order of the Court, however the Court may grant the relief on any basis that it finds does justice between the parties to preserve the status quo, and thus may order that the injunction to remain in for until a specified date. Quia timet injunctions are an important jurisdiction of superior records of record, as they enable the court to prevent threatened unlawful conduct.

The distinction to be drawn between quia timet injunctions and Mareva injunctions is that a cause of action need not exist at the time of the application. A prerequisite of obtaining a Mareva injunction is that a cause of action must exist at the time of the application to the Court. A quia timet injunction may be granted to prohibit a threatented but as yet uncommitted unlawful act.

Instances of circumstances where injunctions may be granted include the threatened infringement of intellectual property rights (copyright, patent, designs, passing off), misuse of confidential information; breaches of contract prior to accrual of actual loss occasioned by the breach; where a person has a right of indemnity from another person and the indemnifier threatens to ignore its obligations; or where a guarantor threatens to act with disregard to its legal obligations.

Jurisdiction

Prior to obtaining quia timet relief in England, a claimant must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a real risk that an actionable wrong has taken place or is likely to take place if an injunction was not granted. The court will not be inclined to exercise its jurisdiction where the claimant has a mere unsubstantiated fear that its legal rights might be infringed. Such an application is premature. Also, the Court is likely to consider reasonable steps that the claimant may take and if those steps are likely to prevent the feared or illegal conduct the court is likely to decline to exercise its jurisdiction.

There is no fixed standard of proof for the evidence in support of such injunctions, however the more serious the consequences of the threatened conduct, the more likely the court will entertain an application for relief and may also affect the breadth of the relief that the court is inclined to grant. Applications must in any event be supported by evidence.

Applications for such injunctions may be made with or without notice to the defendant. As with other forms of interim relief, these injunctions are not a final remedy, do not bring the dispute to a conclusion or finally and conclusively determine the rights of the parties. Indeed, an applicant will be required to give the usual undertakings as to damages to the Court as a condition of the grant of relief. In exceptional cases, quia timet relief may granted prior commencement of proceedings, however the claimant will probably be required to give an undertaking to the Court that proceedings will be commenced. After the grant of the injunction, the litigation will continue to determine the rights of the parties inter se, subject to agreement between the parties to settle the disputes on terms satisfactory to them.

[Latin: since he fears; in fear of]

Usage: The claimant applied to the Court for a quia timet injunction to restrain the competitor from continuing to infringe its intellectual property rights.

Related Words: interim injunction; interim relief; litigation; search order; norwich pharmacal order; freezing injunction; anti suit injunction; specific performance; mareva injunction; anton pillar order; covenant; restrictive covenant; breach of contract; damages; locus standi; forum non conveniens.