Balance Of Convenience Assessment.
Balance of Convenience Assessment
The Balance of Convenience is a key principle in the grant of interim or interlocutory relief, such as injunctions. When a court is asked to grant an injunction, it assesses:
Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case.
Whether the balance of convenience favors granting or refusing the injunction.
The test is essentially:
“Which party will suffer greater harm if the injunction is granted or refused?”
It considers practical and economic consequences, not just legal rights.
Key factors include:
The nature and extent of the harm to both parties.
Whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
Potential prejudice if the interim relief is granted or withheld.
Public interest (if relevant).
The purpose is to prevent irreparable harm while the case is pending and ensure fairness until a final decision is reached.
Legal Framework
In most common law jurisdictions, the Balance of Convenience test arises in:
Interim Injunctions (equity).
Stay Orders.
Prohibitory relief cases.
The courts weigh:
Irreparable injury to the applicant.
Harm to the respondent.
Adequacy of damages.
The outcome is not a final determination of rights but a risk assessment.
Leading Case Laws
1. American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) AC 396 [UK]
Principle: Established the modern approach to interlocutory injunctions.
Application: Courts must ask:
Is there a serious question to be tried?
Would damages be an adequate remedy?
Where does the balance of convenience lie?
Outcome: Injunctions should not be granted automatically; only if the balance of convenience favors it.
2. Sheffield District Railway Co. v. Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Co. (1903) 1 Ch 151 [UK]
Principle: Even where a legal right exists, interim relief is not automatic.
Application: Court considered which party would suffer greater inconvenience.
Outcome: Relief refused as plaintiff’s harm was outweighed by defendant’s operational difficulties.
3. Roche Products Ltd. v. Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust (2006) EWHC 2516 [UK]
Principle: In pharmaceutical supply disputes, injunctions require careful balance of convenience assessment.
Application: Potential disruption to patients if injunction granted was weighed against company’s loss.
Outcome: Court refused injunction, emphasizing patient welfare over commercial interest.
4. Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International (2011) [India]
Principle: Interim injunctions in corporate disputes must consider public interest.
Application: Balance of convenience included reputational damage to company vs. freedom of expression.
Outcome: Court granted limited interim relief but restrained overbroad orders.
5. P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju (1986) 3 SCC 234 [India]
Principle: Indian Supreme Court emphasized both prima facie case and balance of convenience in interim injunctions.
Application: Considered harm to parties and possibility of adequate damages.
Outcome: Injunction granted in favor of the applicant as potential harm was irreparable.
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 [India]
Principle: Courts must consider human rights and public welfare in balance of convenience.
Application: Injunctions in labor and social welfare cases required weighing impact on affected workers vs. employer.
Outcome: Relief was granted emphasizing human rights over financial inconvenience.
Key Takeaways
Balance of convenience ≠ final decision: It’s an interim assessment.
Factors: Harm to applicant vs. respondent, adequacy of damages, public interest.
Global applicability: UK cases like American Cyanamid influence Indian jurisprudence.
Humanitarian/Public factors can outweigh commercial or private interests.
Not mechanical: Courts have discretion; assessment is fact-specific.
RELATED Blog
comments