Template:Confi injunctions: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====Possibility of injunctions and equitable {{confiprov|remedies}}==== | ====Possibility of injunctions and equitable {{confiprov|remedies}}==== | ||
Some people like to acknowledge that the potential consequences of [[breach of confidence]] are so severe that ordinary [[contractual damages]] might not be adequate and [[equitable]] relief might be the only means of protecting your position. [[Injunction|Injunctions]], [[dawn raid]]s, [[Anton Piller]] orders and so on. Whatever floats your boat<ref>See {{Casenote|Anton Piller KG|Manufacturing Processes Limited}}.</ref>. This is by way of [[excuse pre-loading]] to gain an acknowledgment so when the poor victim who goes to the [[courts of chancery]] seeking injunctive relief can point to M’lud (or at the defendant) and say, “You see, your honour? That rascal knew perfectly well I might need an injunction here.” | Some people like to acknowledge that the potential consequences of [[breach of confidence]] are so severe that ordinary [[contractual damages]] might not be adequate and [[equitable]] relief might be the only means of protecting your position. [[Injunction|Injunctions]], [[dawn raid]]s, [[Anton Piller]] orders and so on. Whatever floats your boat<ref>See {{Casenote|Anton Piller KG|Manufacturing Processes Limited}}.</ref>. This is by way of [[excuse pre-loading]] to gain an acknowledgment so when the poor victim who goes to the [[courts of chancery]] seeking injunctive relief can point to M’lud (or at the defendant) and say, “You see, your honour? That rascal knew perfectly well I might need an injunction here.” | ||
In practice it is nonsense — who ever sought an injunction on a confi? — but possibly ''because'' it is nonsense — it isn't really done to argue about it, and if you do, you might raise the suspicion you have nefarious purposes in mind — so the best bet is to let that sleeping dog lie. | |||
Revision as of 15:25, 13 May 2019
Possibility of injunctions and equitable remedies
Some people like to acknowledge that the potential consequences of breach of confidence are so severe that ordinary contractual damages might not be adequate and equitable relief might be the only means of protecting your position. Injunctions, dawn raids, Anton Piller orders and so on. Whatever floats your boat[1]. This is by way of excuse pre-loading to gain an acknowledgment so when the poor victim who goes to the courts of chancery seeking injunctive relief can point to M’lud (or at the defendant) and say, “You see, your honour? That rascal knew perfectly well I might need an injunction here.”
In practice it is nonsense — who ever sought an injunction on a confi? — but possibly because it is nonsense — it isn't really done to argue about it, and if you do, you might raise the suspicion you have nefarious purposes in mind — so the best bet is to let that sleeping dog lie.