Examination Timing: 00H00M40S
Simon and Judy Thompson, who are passionate gardeners, live next to a factory owned by Industrial Solutions Ltd. Recently, they noticed that a large brick wall on the factory's property had begun to deteriorate significantly. Concerned for their safety and the usability of their beloved garden, the Thompsons consulted a structural engineer, Dr. Emily Clarke. Dr. Clarke advised that there is an imminent risk of the wall collapsing into the Thompsons' property. The deterioration has stopped the Thompsons from using their garden out of fear of injury.
What should the Thompsons do to resolve this situation effectively and legally?
< Previous
Your selected option: C
Next >
The appropriate legal action for the Thompsons in this situation would be to seek a mandatory injunction "quia timet." This type of injunction compels a person to carry out a specific act, such as repairing a dangerous structure, to prevent imminent harm. Given that the structural engineer has confirmed the risk of the wall collapsing, the "quia timet" injunction is suitable because it addresses the prevention of probable harm rather than just actual harm.
Key Points:
Mandatory Injunction: This injunction mandates an action to prevent a likely danger. It is proactive, aiming to prevent damage before it occurs.
"Quia Timet" Injunction: Specifically used when there is a fear of imminent harm that has not yet occurred. It is designed to prevent damage before it happens, which is ideal in cases where the potential for harm is high.
Legal Threshold for Injunctions: The claimant must show a high probability of significant harm or damage occurring if the injunction is not granted. The evidence provided by Dr. Clarke supports this requirement.
Safety and Prevention: The priority in this case is to ensure the safety of the Thompsons and the preservation of their property, aligning with the principles of nuisance and negligence law.
Collect Question
userContent
