BEYOND IRREPARABLE INJURY - Balancing the
Equities (aka Undue Hardship to the Defendant)
Even if P can show irreparable injury a court may still deny an
injunction if hardship to D is too significant
Court asks whether:
The hardship on D of granting the injunction
disproportionately outweighs
hardship on P of not granting the injunction (aka
benefit to plaintiff of granting the injunction)
Balancing of Equities/Undue Hardship, cont’d
• This is a defense = must be raised by D or it’s waived.
• How do we give content to this test?
• What kinds of harm to P if injunction is not granted (or what
benefit to P if it is granted) does court weigh in the balance?
• What kinds of harm to D if injunction granted does court typically
weigh in the balance?
Balancing the Equities in Whitlock
• Does the burden on D (Hilander) if the injunction is granted
disproportionately outweigh burden on P (Whitlock) if injunction is
not granted (or benefit if granted)?
• What is harm to D if granted?
• What is harm to P if not granted?
• Why doesn’t appellate court uphold lower court’s REFUSAL to
grant injunction?
To what extent should D’s culpability factor into the court’s
balancing of equities?
• How should courts deal with D’s culpability during the
balancing?
• Should it matter that D acted intentionally if D’s harm from
granting the injunction is disproportionate to P’s harm?
• What outcome in Whitlock if D didn’t know the addition was
over the property boundary but also didn’t bother to check?
To what extent does P’s culpability weigh in the balancing?
• If P does something to aggravate the situation, courts can weigh P’s
actions in the balance as well.
•
Example – if P refused to allow surveyors on land to find out where lot
lines between P & D’s land were
• To what extent is D arguing P (Whitlock) has acted in a manner so as
to be undeserving of relief?
•
P’s claim is barred by laches
•
•
•
The Doctrine of Laches: Equity aids the vigilant, not those who
sleep on their rights.
Courts deny relief if
•
P’s neglect to assert a right or claim
•
Together with the passage of time or other circumstances
•
Substantially prejudices D
Do P’s actions fit this definition?
Cooperative Insurance – Still More Reasons to Deny
Injunctions
 Once P has established irreparable injury as a result of D’s actions, a
court may still deny P’s request for an injunction for many reasons
OTHER than balancing of the equities (these are often described
simply as part of a court’s “equitable discretion”).
 What remedy does Co-op Ins. P seek?
 Why does the trial court refuse to grant P’s requested
remedy?
Cooperative Insurance – Balancing the Equities (a
review)

In whose favor do the equities balance? Who has the greater
burden if the injunction is or is not granted?
◦ P’s burden if not granted?
◦ D’s burden if granted? Disproportionate to P’s?
◦ Wasn’t D an intentional actor (i.e., didn’t breach
Why does that weigh differently than in Whitlock?
intentionally)?
Cooperative Insurance – Enforcing Clause 4(19) &
Burden on the Court

Why is it so burdensome for the court to order D to “keep the
premises open for retail trade?”

What is likely to happen if the parties can’t agree as to the
meaning of the term or on how to interpret the court’s order?
Why is that a problem?
Willing v. Mazzocone – still more reasons for denying
injunctions
• D demonstrated outside of P’s offices falsely accusing them of diverting
money she paid them for W to themselves.
• Pa. SCT looks at insolvency re irreparable injury – decides not
relevant
• Note – Willing is a minority approach. Most court’s factor insolvency into
their decision of irreparable injury
• Other situations where bankruptcy arises as a factor in the
decision to issue an injunction:
• D cut and took P’s trees. P seeks an injunction requiring D to plant
replacement trees. But D is bankrupt so injunction would require
spending $ on seeds, planting, etc. that D should be giving to other
creditors. Will P get the injunction?
• How is that situation different from Willing?
Irreparable injury & multiplicity of suits
 What is the nature of D’s action in Willing?
 How often are Ps going to have to go to court?
 How big are the actual damages from each libel?
 Are damages an adequate remedy?
Willing: More reasons to deny injunctions - equity
policy & injunctions against libel
Maxim:
Equity will not enjoin a libel.
Why?
1.
How we originally viewed “property”
2.
Libel is a fact-based inquiry
Injunctions against libel/speech – 1st amendment policy
reasons to deny injunctions
 SCT has strong presumption against injunctions barring
speech.
 This is true even if the speech is subject to subsequent
criminal punishment or civil lawsuits.
 Rationales supporting presumption
restricting speech (aka prior restraints)
against
injunctions
1.
Injunctions chill more speech than subsequent punishment/civil lawsuits.
2.
Injunctions prohibiting speech tend to be ex ante determinations of harm.