The bank took possession of farms but its employees were threatened with serious physical violence by the borrower. It therefore sought a declaration that it was lawfully in possession and had a right to sell the farms and also sought injunctions restraining the borrower from interfering with its rights. In response the borrower raised hopeless arguments concerning the court’s jurisdiction.
An interlocutory mandatory injunction should be granted only if it is likely that that the applicant will succeed at trial, although ultimately the question is one of the balance of convenience.
The court granted the injunction because the bank had a very strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoured the bank. The court found that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the bank because it risked losing a sale, interest would continue to accrue in circumstances where there was no or little prospect of repayment and the bank would not able to monitor the farm’s plant and equipment. Without the injunctions sought by the Bank, it would be deprived of its rights to possession.