+44(0)20 7638 9271

Injunctions to Prevent Future Harm (Quia Timet) and Costs: Islington Vs Elliot

Summary: In the case of London Borough of Islington v Elliot and another [2012] EWCA Civ 56 the Court of Appeal allowed Islington’s appeal against an order of the High Court that it should pay the claimants’ costs. The claimants had sought an injunction requiring Islington to take action to prevent nuisance from encroaching tree roots where no physical damage had yet occurred. The case provides useful guidance on the approach taken by the Courts to quia timet injunctions, injunctions intended to prevent future threatened wrongful acts or harm and also in relation to compliance with pre-action protocols and costs. Please speak to Julian Johnstone, Partner and Head of Druces LLP’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution team for more information and see our briefing note below.

Relevant to: Landlords, tenants, litigants, legal practitioners

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Briefing Note – Quia timet injunctions and costs Islington v Elliot (June 2012)