2007Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and PracticeRequires access

Interlocutory Injunctions in Construction Cases in Hong Kong: Revisiting American Cyanamid Principles

Henry C. H. Suen, Sai On Cheung, Hong Ting Lee

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Interlocutory injunctions in construction litigation cases are not uncommon, in particular, in construction nuisance cases. Despite its importance, there are only a few written materials dealing with this topic. With the public increasingly aware of their legal rights, it is anticipated that the number of interlocutory injunction applications will remain high in the foreseeable future. It is now timely and a worthwhile exercise to revisit those principles governing the courts’ discretion in granting and rejecting interlocutory injunctions. This paper discusses those factors that are relevant in exercising that discretion and how they should be assessed. It also examines the principles established by Lord Diplock in the landmark case “American Cyanamid,” i.e., how this case influenced judgments in recent Hong Kong construction cases. The paper concludes by summarizing the overriding principles in interlocutory injunction applications.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Interlocutory injunctions in construction litigation cases are not uncommon, in particular, in construction nuisance cases. Despite its importance, there are only a few written materials dealing with this topic. With the public increasingly aware of their legal rights, it is anticipated that the number of interlocutory injunction applications will remain high in the foreseeable future. It is now timely and a worthwhile exercise to revisit those principles governing the courts’ discretion in granting and rejecting interlocutory injunctions. This paper discusses those factors that are relevant in exercising that discretion and how they should be assessed. It also examines the principles established by Lord Diplock in the landmark case “American Cyanamid,” i.e., how this case influenced judgments in recent Hong Kong construction cases. The paper concludes by summarizing the overriding principles in interlocutory injunction applications.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Interlocutory injunctions in construction litigation cases are not uncommon, in particular, in construction nuisance cases. Despite its importance, there are only a few written materials dealing with this topic. With the public increasingly aware of their legal rights, it is anticipated that the number of interlocutory injunction applications will remain high in the foreseeable future. It is now timely and a worthwhile exercise to revisit those principles governing the courts’ discretion in granting and rejecting interlocutory injunctions. This paper discusses those factors that are relevant in exercising that discretion and how they should be assessed. It also examines the principles established by Lord Diplock in the landmark case “American Cyanamid,” i.e., how this case influenced judgments in recent Hong Kong construction cases. The paper concludes by summarizing the overriding principles in interlocutory injunction applications.

Key concepts: Interlocutory, Discretion, Law, Political science, Law and economics, Engineering, Sociology, Appeal

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Interlocutory Injunctions in Construction Cases in Hong Kong: Revisiting American Cyanamid Principles — Research Paper | ScholarLens