Liberal Arts College Jamaica Ltd v University Council of Jamaica

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Judge: Dave, J. (Ag.)
• Judgment Date: 23 December 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 12 JJC 2301
• Date: 23 December 2003
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. C.L. 2003 HCV 2353

BETWEEN

LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE JAMAICA LIMITED

CLAIMANT

AND

UNIVERSITY COUNCIL OF JAMAICA

DEFENDANT

CLAIM NO. C.L. 2003 HCV 2353

INJUNCTIONS - Interim injunction - Restraining defendant from withdrawing its accreditation of programmes offered by claimant - Whether breach of statutory duty - Whether breach of duty of care - Whether there is a serious issue to be tried

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

Dave, J. (Ag.)

1 Liberal Art College of Jamaica Limited filed an application on the 3 ^rd December 2003 for an interim injunction to restrain the University Council of Jamaica from withdrawing their accreditation of the B.Sc in Education and the B.Sc in Business Administration programmes offered by the College as of December 31, 2003. The same day, the 3 ^rd December 2003, the College also filed a claim for damages for negligence and/or breach of statutory duty against the University Council of Jamaica and also sought an interim injunction.

2 On the 23 ^rd October, 2003 Brooks J. had dismissed a similar application for interim injunction based on a previous Writ of Summons which bears a close resemblance to the present claim holding that the College could not secure an injunction for post-writ action of the Council which does not fall in the context of the Writ. The judge found that the College had failed to show it had a serious issue to be tried (per. Brooks, J. Liberal Arts College of Jamaica Ltd. et al v. University Council of Jamaica Suit No. C.L. 2002/C-138, dated October 23, 2003 ). These are the events that lead to this present application for injunction. This application as framed in paragraph 1 of the College's notice for injunction is in the nature of a prohibitory injunction.

3 The principle which govern the grant or refusal of prohibitory interim injunction was laid down by Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon [1975] 1 All ER 506 at 510-511. He said as follows:

• (a) The court must be satisfied that "there is a serious question to be satisfied", (ibid, p.510. paragraph d)

• (b) It is no part of the court's function at this stage of litigation to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavits as to facts on which the claims of either party may ultimately depend nor to decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed arguments and mutual consideration. These are matters to be dealt with at the trial.

• (c) Unless the material available to the court at the hearing of the interim application fails to disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at the trial, the court should go on to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the interim injunction.

• (d) In deciding where the balance of convenience lies the court should first consider whether (i) an award of damages would be an adequate remedy if the plaintiff succeed at trial and (ii) the defendant would be in a financial position to pay the damages. If the answer is yes to these questions, then no interim injunction should be granted. One the other hand if damages would not be an adequate remedy to the plaintiff if he succeed at the trial then the court should consider, if the defendant were to succeed at the trial whether the plaintiff's undertaking for damages would be an adequate remedy. If damages would be adequate...