top of page
Review Your SQE 1 Practice Records

Examination Timing: 00H01M06S

Mr. and Mrs. Green, avid gardeners, have stopped using their garden because the brick wall separating their property from their neighbour’s factory is in severe disrepair. A structural engineer has warned that the wall is in imminent danger of collapsing into the Greens' garden. They wish to resume using their garden as soon as possible. 


What legal action should Mr. and Mrs. Green take to achieve their goal?

< Previous

You have chosen the incorrect answer.
Your selected option: A

Next >

Mr. and Mrs. Green should seek a mandatory injunction quia timet to compel the factory owner to demolish or repair the wall. In cases where there is an imminent risk of physical injury or damage, such as the potential collapse of a wall, a mandatory quia timet injunction is appropriate. This type of injunction is preventative and compels positive action to avert the threatened harm. The case of Birmingham Development Company Limited v Tyler [2008] EWCA Civ 859 supports this, stating that if there is a risk of significant harm, the court can grant such an injunction. An interlocutory or interim injunction is temporary and intended to maintain the status quo pending a full trial, which would not address the Greens’ immediate need to make their garden safe. A prohibitory injunction would prevent the factory owner from committing a future wrong but would not compel the necessary repairs. Seeking damages addresses past harm but does not provide the immediate relief required to prevent potential injury from the wall’s collapse. 


Key Point: A mandatory quia timet injunction is crucial in nuisance cases where imminent danger requires proactive measures to prevent harm. This type of injunction ensures that the threat is addressed before any damage occurs, restoring the claimant's ability to use and enjoy their property safely.

Collect Question

userContent

Study CELE SQE.png
CELE SQE PASS wishes from Lucky Lion_

Ai Content

bottom of page