Canada: Interlocutory Injunctions In The Public Interest: The UK Supreme Court Considers When An Undertaking In Damages Is Required

Last Updated: March 12 2013
Article by Brendan Owen Brammall

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2018

In a recent decision, the UK Supreme Court considered whether public authorities, acting in fulfillment of their statutory mandate, have to give an undertaking in damages when they seek an interlocutory injunction. The case arose in the context of a share sale scheme that the Financial Services Authority ("FSA") alleged to be a fraud, involving the sale of shares to third party investors, without an approved prospectus, in Sinaloa Gold plc ("Sinaloa"). In December 2010, the FSA initiated proceedings against Sinaloa and two other defendants. Shortly before doing so, the FSA had obtained without notice an interlocutory injunction freezing the defendants' assets. Sinaloa had six bank accounts at Barclays Bank plc ("Barclays").

Pursuant to the original terms of the injunction, the FSA was required to give an undertaking with respect to any costs and losses that third parties (other than the defendants) may suffer as a result of the injunction. The FSA subsequently applied to have this undertaking varied, such that the undertaking would apply only to third party costs (not third party losses). Barclays opposed the FSA's application. Although unsuccessful at the first instance, the FSA was successful at the Court of Appeal and at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that there is no general rule requiring a public authority to give an undertaking with respect to third party losses, and no particular circumstances requiring the FSA to do so in this case.

Background

The FSA is the regulator of financial services and markets and carries out this public function pursuant to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA"). Among other things, the FSMA provides that, upon application by the FSA, the court may make a freezing order, if satisfied that a person has contravened a relevant requirement. A "relevant requirement" includes the requirement to be either authorised or exempt before carrying on a regulated activity, such as selling shares to the public. It is also noteworthy that, with respect to authorised persons, the FSMA enables the FSA to impose a freezing order without going to court and thus without having to give an undertaking in damages. In this case, the FSA had to go to court—and the undertaking issue arose—because the defendants were unauthorised. Finally, the FSMA exempts the FSA from liability in damages for any act or omission in the discharge of its functions, unless the act or omission was in bad faith or unlawful under the human rights legislation.

The undertaking in this case was based on a standard-form undertaking that has been developed to accompany freezing orders under a UK practice direction. The language at issue is as follows:

The Applicant will pay the reasonable costs of anyone other than the Respondents which have been incurred as a result of this order including the costs of finding out whether that person holds any of the Respondent's assets and if the court later finds that this order has caused such person loss, and decides that such person should be compensated for that loss, the Applicant will comply with any order the court may make. [emphasis added by the UK Supreme Court (para. 6)]

Although the FSA was prepared to live with the first part of this paragraph (thus preserving the undertaking with respect to third party costs), the FSA sought to delete the second, underlined part (thus removing any potential obligation with respect to third party losses). As the Court of Appeal observed in its reasons (at para. 40), the underlined part is not, strictly speaking, an undertaking to pay damages, but rather an undertaking to comply with any subsequent order that the court may make with respect to damages.

Decisions Below

At the first instance, Judge Hodge refused to vary the undertaking as requested by the FSA. Although acknowledging that there were arguments in favour of the FSA's position, Judge Hodge observed that third parties (such as Barclays) affected by a freezing order granted to a public authority may be entirely innocent. Judge Hodge concluded that their costs and losses should, as a general rule, be borne by the public purse:

The real issue seems to me to be whether the potential costs which may fall upon a third party of a statutory body exercising its law enforcement functions should, in the general run of cases, and admitting that there may be particular exceptions in individual cases, fall on a wholly innocent third party or whether they should fall on the public purse from which the enforcement authority receives its costs and resources.  In other words, the real issue seems to me to be one of the allocation of costs and resources. (para. 65)

Judge Hodge held that the appropriate protection for a public authority such as the FSA comes at the stage when the court has to decide whether to order compensation for third party losses:

If there are special considerations as to why the cross-undertaking in damages should not be enforced, those can be urged at the time the third party seeks to enforce the undertaking; ... it seems to me that the better position is to require the undertaking in the first instance, and then to consider whether there is, or is not, reason to enforce it in an appropriate case. (para. 67)

The Court of Appeal allowed the FSA's appeal. Referring to earlier case law, the Court of Appeal first established that there is a general practice, when a public authority seeks an interlocutory injunction as part of its law enforcement functions, not to require an undertaking in damages in favour of the defendant(s) against whom the injunction is sought. Accordingly, as formulated by the Court of Appeal, the question in this case was whether the general practice should also prevail with respect to third parties.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the "logic of applying the same principle to third parties is compelling."(para. 53) Among other things, the Court of Appeal noted that the FSA's exemption from liability under the FSMA does not distinguish between defendants and third parties, and that it is both unavoidable and accepted that any form of law enforcement is likely to have adverse consequences for some third parties. Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged that a public authority should, as a general rule, be prepared to cover third parties' costs in complying with a freezing order (such as the costs of identifying the particular assets affected by the order), the Court of Appeal held that a public authority should not be required to cover third parties' losses (which may be much larger than their costs). Covering third parties' losses would be tantamount to a "kind of blank cheque." (para. 55)

The UK Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court indicated that the considerations in a law enforcement action commenced by a public authority differ from the considerations in an action commenced by a private party. Whereas an undertaking in damages is routinely required in private actions, the Supreme Court held that no such undertaking should be required, as a matter of course, in law enforcement actions commenced by a public authority, "without considering what is fair in the particular circumstances of the particular case."(para. 33) The Supreme Court noted that a public authority is often acting in fulfillment of a statutory mandate and has only the resources that have been assigned to it for its functions. Like the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court noted that these considerations "apply with particular force to any open-ended cross-undertaking in respect of third party loss"—the quantum of which could be significant—but that these considerations do not "apply in the same way to a cross-undertaking in respect of third party expense." (para. 35; emphasis added)

Having held that no undertaking in respect of third party losses is required as a matter of course, the Supreme Court then concluded that there were no particular circumstances that would require such an undertaking in this case. Among other things, the Supreme Court observed that there is no general duty in English public law to indemnify those affected by action undertaken under legislative authority, and that the FSMA specifically exempts the FSA from liability in damages (excepting only acts or omissions that are in bad faith or in breach of the human rights legislation). In this regard, the Supreme Court stated:

... in a case of positive action taken by the FSA affecting innocent third persons, the general protective duties and objectives of FSMA could not involve under FSMA or at common law any assumption of responsibility towards or any liability for breach of a duty of care enforceable at the instance of third persons ... (para. 37)

The Supreme Court also observed that (as mentioned above) the FSMA enables the FSA to freeze the assets of authorised persons without a court order and thus without giving any undertaking in damages, and that innocent third parties affected by this action would have no right to be indemnified by the FSA. By the same token, the Supreme Court held that innocent third parties affected by the FSA's court proceeding as against unauthorised persons should likewise not generally be entitled to compensation for their losses:

There would be an apparent imbalance, if the FSA were required to accept potential liability under a cross-undertaking when it addresses the activities of unauthorised persons and has therefore to seek the court's endorsement of its stance in order for a freezing order to issue. (para. 38)

The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and held that the underlined part of the above undertaking should be deleted as requested by the FSA, such that the FSA's undertaking would be limited to third party costs and would not include any obligation with respect to third party losses.

Potential Significance

Although the UK Supreme Court has not closed the door on the possibility that a public authority may be required to give an undertaking in damages when seeking an interlocutory injunction, it has clearly signalled that such an undertaking should not be required as a general rule and should only be required after considering what is fair in the circumstances of each particular case. Given that this issue has not been thoroughly addressed in the Canadian case law to date, the decision of the UK Supreme Court will likely be an important case in Canada going forward.

Case Information

The Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc, [2013] UKSC 11

Date Decided: February 27, 2013

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions