Equity & Trust Law Case: Interim Injunction Against Photo Publication

This case study analyzes the legal issues surrounding Eva and Herman, a couple seeking an interim interlocutory injunction to prevent Oh wow magazine from further publishing unauthorized wedding photos. The analysis draws upon the Senior Courts Act 1981 and relevant case law, including American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd, Mosley v News Group Newspaper, Heeling Sports Ltd v Youngsters, and Douglas v Hello, to assess the viability of their claim. Key considerations include conflicting evidence, potential damages, balance of convenience, and breach of privacy/confidentiality. The study also explores the perspective presented in Cambridge v BBC, which could impact the couples' chances of obtaining an injunction. Further, it assesses the viability of Will's decision to start a new account for customers by considering the case of Barclays Bank Limited vs Quite close investment.

EQUITY AND TRUST 1
EQUITY AND TRUST
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

EQUITY AND TRUST 2
Equity and Trust
Issues in the case
Eva and Herman are wedding couples, who are promoting clean and monogamous leaving.
Goodbye magazine has won the exclusive contracts to take photographs in the wedding reception
of the two couples. However, a twist takes place when unauthorized photographer from another
magazine house leaks pictures to their main office in London. The pictures are published by the
Oh wow magazine. The couples require advise on whether they can apply for interim
interlocutory injunction from the courts preventing the Oh wow magazine from further
publishing of the pictures and holding them responsible for any further economic problems
caused by the leaked picture. This is so that they pay for the same.
Advise of the case
Positives of the case
The senior courts ACT 1981 states that the high court and any courts above it, is awarded
the authority and freewill to order or give an injunction in all court cases that the court sees it just
and convenient to do so1. With such support of the ACT, it is easier for the couples to appeal
against the actions of the Oh wow magazine in claiming that they have broken equity and trust
rules2. The couples are therefore free to apply for interim injunction preventing further
1 Cremers, K., Gaessler, F., Harhoff, D., Helmers, C. and Lefouili, Y., 2016. Invalid but
infringed? An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, 131, pp.218-242.
2 Chen, S.Y., Wu, W.C., Chang, C.S., Lin, C.T., Kung, J.Y., Weng, H.C., Lin, Y.T. and
Lee, S.I., 2015. Organizational justice, trust, and identification and their effects on organizational
commitment in hospital nursing staff. BMC health services research, 15(1), p.363.

EQUITY AND TRUST 3
publication of the wedding photographs. The Goodbye magazine can also appeal on the basis
that Oh wow magazine breaks the trust of exclusive contract that was awarded to them. The
underlying rule however based on this ACT, is that the jurisdiction of the final decision remains
for the court to decide3.
Following this ACT, the best way to advise the couples is considering court decision on
such past cases. Considering past cases will help on getting the best advice since, there are no
definite rules of Equity and Trust that can be used to decide this case4.
American Cyanamid Company vs Ethicon limited
The issue in the case was based on the primary extent on the claim for granting interim
injunction. House of lords using the same case set out details and guidelines regarding how the
courts are to deal with the grant of interim injunctions in general5.
The following rules were then set out that can be compared with the case at hand to help in
making decision if the couples will be granted an interim injunction.
Firstly, the court held that there should be conflicting evidence in respect of the interim
application. The matter should be even evidence for trial. In the American Cyanide case, the
considered evidence was the rule of practice by the two companies. They considered that the rule
3 Bundock, M., 2018. Shipping law handbook. Informa Law from Routledge, p 211-213
4 Herinckx, Y., 2014. Liability for Inappropriate Interim Measures in Commercial
Arbitration. Pp 103-107
5 Shelton IV, F.E., Harris, J.L., Bakos, G.J. and Baxter III, C.O., Ethicon LLC, 2018.
Surgical fastener. U.S. Patent Application 29/569,218.

EQUITY AND TRUST 4
was so well established that they won’t order any interim injunction6. Further evidence, however
presented in the court of appeal led them to rule in favor of the American Cyanide. With
reference to the Eva and Herman case, there is enough evidence to consider trial and interim
injunction. The Oh wow magazine do not have the rights to publish the photographs. That is the
reason why, Julian the one who took the wedding photograph sneaked in as a cake decorator.
Through this virtue we can evidently conclude that there is evident enough to put the case to
interim injunction. The goodbye magazine has the audacity to seek judgement since they had a
400000 deal with Eva and Herman. The moment the photograph was published the deal affected
the existing trust between the two. Following such consideration, it is right to put the deal
between the two away.
Mosley vs News group newspaper
Secondly, the court should consider if there is enough damage on the contract so that the
claimant can be granted an injunction. The court assures that in case there are visible damages
then the court grants an injunction7. Mosley company was granted injunction vs the News group
newspaper company had destroyed a deal worth billions which the News Group company had to
pay for. In the case of Eva and Herman the deal struck between the goodbye magazine is
therefore at jeopardy since the leak of the photos. The damage is issue enough to ask for remedy
through interim action. The important issue for remedy is also reputation. The two couples are
also film stars that promote monogamous and health living. Through the leak of this photo, they
6 Virgo, G., 2018. The Principles of Equity & Trusts. Oxford university press, p 217
7 Hudson, A., 2016. Understanding equity & trusts. Routledge, p 198

EQUITY AND TRUST 5
have not only lost the financial deal but also reputation. The two is reason enough for the court to
decide remedy through interim injunction which should be paid for by the Oh wow magazine8.
Heeling sports limited and another vs youngsters and other
Thirdly is the consideration of the court regarding the availability of damages for either
sides so that a balance is struck. In this case when the court determines that there is an even
balance, they maintain a status quo. On the case of Heeling Sports limited and another vs
youngsters and other was considered during the appeal of youngsters in the court of appeal. Their
appeal was allowed after consideration of the damages caused affecting both parties. The judge
rules that the damage created prevented abuse of the youngsters therefore creating a balance
between the company and the individuals. In the case of Eva and Herman, the balance of
convenience lay with the Oh wow magazine, their reasons for such fishy behavior has to be
established before considering if there is need for striking balance and maintaining a status quo.
Through evaluation, it is evident that there is no need to maintain status quo while denying
interim action since the Oh wow magazine journalist Julian did her action in a sneaky manner.
From the sneaking part to the wrong publication of the magazine the next day in the morning.
Douglas vs Hello
The Douglas vs Hello case is important in considering the breach of privacy and
confidentiality that is evident enough to grant interim injunction to Eva and Herman. The case of
Douglas vs Hello is almost the same to the one being faced by Eva and Herman. Douglas and his
wedding made a deal with the OK magazine which would take exclusivity for the photograph
8 Garton, J., Moffat, G., Bean, G. and Probert, R., 2015. Moffat's Trusts Law 6th Edition:
Text and Materials. Cambridge University Press.

EQUITY AND TRUST 6
deal. The couple were later surprised when Hello magazine published the wedding magazine.
The deal with the Ok magazine was worth a million euros. Douglas sued Hello for the same9.
During the judgement, the judge in charge Brooke L.J. ruled that there were three
important considerations of breach of confidentiality that have to be considered. In their ruling
they stated, the following.
There has to be obligation of confidence. The obligation of confidence was retained as
right of privacy in the remaining photographs in regard to Hello’s case. In the case of Eva and
Herman, the two are known film stars, who have a reputation to protect. The published photos
have been used to destroy the two-people’s reputation, this might affect their career. This is
therefore an obligation of confidentiality10.
Secondly, the judge proved that confidentiality can only be breached during private
occasion11. The Douglas wedding took place in a private venue in plaza hotel, New York.
Through this fact the judges ruled that there was invasion of privacy. In the case of Eva and
Herman, the have organized a guest only wedding in a private hotel named Adelphi in
California. With this consideration, it is certain that there is invasion in privacy by Julian. The
invasion of privacy can further be proven through her actions of sneaking in as a cake decorator.
9 Richardson, M. and Ricketson, S. eds., 2017. Research Handbook on Intellectual
Property in Media and Entertainment. Edward Elgar Publishing, p 211
10 Bellido, J. ed., 2017. Landmark Cases in Intellectual Property Law. Bloomsbury
Publishing. Pp 213-215
11 Patrick, G.J.A., Kopulos, C.R. and McGahan, D.M., Procter and Gamble Co, 2018.
Dispensing cup. U.S. Patent Application 29/584,981.

EQUITY AND TRUST 7
Thirdly, the prospective claimants have to make it clear that the photographic pictures are
not to be taken during the wedding12. The Douglas case had this prospects except that judge
Brooke ruled that the couple did not except total privacy in a wedding with 250 guests and more.
Eva and Herman had people searched at the entrance for cameras and that’s why Julian had to
sneak in a picture, as a cake decorator. However, considering the number of guests in the
wedding it will be difficult to determine if the case was invasion of privacy.
Cambridge vs British Broadcasting Corporation
During the case of Cambridge vs BBC an important perspective to be considered in the
case of the two judgements might have come-up. According to the lead judge in the case interim
injunction against BBC was denied because it was the role of the media company to report news
however good or bad. Considering the case of Eva and Herman, the two are celebrity film stars
advocating for healthy and monogamous living, it is assumed that anything they do should
revolve around such. The picture by the Oh Wow magazine is therefore an eye-opener to the
people and therefore might deny the two couples an interim injunction.
Question
Plan 1: money returned to the customers through starting a new account called pre-
shipment customer safety account.
12 Patrick, G.J.A., Kopulos, C.R. and McGahan, D.M., Procter and Gamble Co, 2018.
Dispensing cup. U.S. Patent Application 29/584,981.

EQUITY AND TRUST 8
While assessing if the actions by Will is viable, it is important to consider previous cases
where such decisions were made and how they affected the respective parties that were involved.
Then, it would be easy to determine which decision is the best and how it shall have influenced
or affected the viability of the decision by Will.
Firstly, is the case of Barclays Bank Limited vs Quite close investment. Where the Rolls
Razor limited sought loan from the Quit Close investment for the purpose of paying dividends to
the company. The company had gone into involuntary liquidation and the bank where the loaned
amount was deposited which was Barclays Bank was sued by the Quit Close investment for not
returning the amount to them as loaners but giving it to the customers of-which the account was
opened for13. The Quit Close company was claiming the money in the account. It is the same
dilemma that Will is facing with his Doors limited.
During the case of the Barclays vs Quit Close company, the judge who presided over the
case judge Wilberforce during his ruling held that there existed a decision of trust. Decision of
trust according to the judge was created by mutual obligation14. The mutual obligation was
reached when a new account was created by the Rolls Razor company. Creating of a new
account for a known purpose gives the essence of bargain between the two. He continued to hold
that the Rolls Razor company therefore becomes a trustee before gaining its unintentional
liquidation. In such a case therefore the company becomes a lender loan benefit of the received
amount through mutual benefit15.
13 Gullifer, L. and Payne, J., 2015. Corporate finance law: principles and policy.
Bloomsbury Publishing, p. 112
14 Cranston, R., 2018. Principles of banking law. Oxford University Press, p 134
15 Hudson, E., 2017. A Normative Approach to the Quistclose Trust. The Modern Law
Review, 80(5), pp.775-811.

EQUITY AND TRUST 9
Applying the same concepts on Will and Doors limited to derive viability, the plan might
work in favor of Will. If only he will open a fixed account for his company’s debtors and
accounts, then the amount will be ready enough to be paid to the customers. It will be held in
trust for the same purpose that the account was opened.
The second case Re-Kayford 1975 case further determined that another important thing to
determine is the certainty of intention. Even during when the Kayford limited was undergoing
bankruptcy the initially opened account has to remain and serve the purpose for which it was
opened. If the company is so certain about their intention, then the account is held for what it is
supposed to do. Certainty in this case is gained through how the customers are the beneficiaries
of the amount and not any other stakeholders. In Wills case the beneficiaries are the customers in
case there is liquidation, it goes without saying that the customers will benefit from the account.
During the Barclays vs Quit Close case, the judge introduced the term subject matter.
Subject matter is the reason why the trust has to be completed. The subject matter is normally
recorded at the time of opening of the account. The Rolls Razor company feared that they might
undergo bankruptcy, which they under-went finally. It is for this same purpose that the Door
limited is seeking funding. Having met this conditions, the Door limited and Will is free to seek
loan for a fixed customer account, that will help his customers in case the company undergoes
insolvency. The judge stress on account naming during the latter case, makes Wills plan viable
on naming the account customer fixed deposit account.
Plan 2

EQUITY AND TRUST 10
Using the amount from his own wealth to pay the shareholders dividends before it
will be returned to him afterwards
In the second plan by Will might derive if its viable from the judgement given during the
Twinsectra vs Yardley and others. The court was to determine honest behavior of Mr. Yardley
by using a borrowed amount for the purpose it wasn’t meant for. However, the two actions
helped the company Twinsectra company which was supposed to use it for growth of the
company instead Yardley used it to pay the debtors of the company and other shareholders16.
Therefore, still in the case of Twinsectra vs Yardley and other, judge Hoffman claimed that
ones the plan is not achieved; it is prudent that the amount be returned to the creditor in its whole
or the amount that is remaining after the purpose has not been achieved like it was meant17. With
the judgement of Hoffman, the plan by Will sounds valid. Door limited will give back 400000 to
Will, if the purpose that it was meant was not achieved.
Lord Millet in his judgement of the Juliet Bellis and co vs Challinor and others, had the
opinion that trust in such a case can be mirrored in four approaches. The lender, the borrower,
the purpose and the no one. The lender has to lend knowing the purpose of why he is doing so.
The borrower has to specify the reasons for him doing the same. The purpose is the reason
behind the whole transaction and finally the no one. A no one is the beneficiary who remains in
suspense in case there is an amount that remains. According to Lord Millet, his judgement claims
16 Clarke, R., 2017. The Quistclose Trust-A Welcome Facilitator of Corporate Rescue.
Nottingham LJ, 26, p.130.
17 ? Chan, A., 2015. The Tree That was Not Meant to Be-The Quistclose Trust Moving on
from the Twinsectra Model and Why It May Never Be An Established Transactional
Arrangement. HKJ Legal Stud., 9, p.1.

EQUITY AND TRUST 11
that according to English laws in case of any remaining amounts, the amount has to go back to
the borrower and not the lender18. The money is for the borrower until the purpose for which it is
taken is fulfilled. It is for this reason that the amount becomes a property of trust. He even refers
to this section as specific trust. Specific trust in this case makes the plan by Will quite invalid. In
case the amount doesn’t serve the purpose that Will has borrowed it for it becomes unviable. The
amount will not be returned to Will personal accounts or wealth like he has proposed but will
remain part of the assets of the Doors Limited. At this point the plan by Will is no longer viable.
Implication of Wills lunch with Steve
The meeting of Will and Steve is a determination of trust that comes through declaration
by the word of mouth. Use of declaratives during conversations in more than one occasions can
be a decision to determine trust. With reference to the case of Paul vs Constance, where the
judge was supposed to rule on the rightful owner of an account which was initially owned by the
deceased19. In his ruling the judge ruled that since the deceased had severally declared in his
conversation that they shared the account with Ms. Paul. She was the rightful owner of the
account. The judge used the exact declaratives words as “this money is as much as yours as it is
mine.” This exact statement are declaratives that create trust20. Will has used almost similar
words with Steve he says, “my wealth is your wealth too.” Such declaration is word enough for
18 En, N.K.J., 2017. Once More unto the Breach: The Quistclose Trust Revisited. Oxford
U. Undergraduate LJ, p.56.
19 Stockwell, N., 2005. Trusts and Equity. Pearson Education UK, pg. 112.
20 Riches, J., 2014. Optimize Equity and Trusts. Routledge.pg 112-113

EQUITY AND TRUST 12
justification if trust between the two parties. Steve can therefore claim all the wealth owned by
Will.
A similar judgement of Rowe vs Prance, the judge introduced the aspect of being a trustee
as a contributor21. He relayed that if one has to claim ownership or has to claim being a trustee to
a certain account, he has to contribute an equal share to that account. Steve can therefore only
claim ownership of Will wealth, if he has contributed to Will’s wealth.
Taking note Will recognize that everything he knows about computers was taught to him
by Steve which is the cause of the judgement and ruling in Adams vs Kensington Vestry. The
basis of this judgement revolves around the assumption that the latter will do the right things
when disposed with similar responsibilities as the ones that Will had.
Considering such implications, Will might lose his wealth to Steve following their lunch
time meeting22. However, the judgement of the Bieber vs Tether Limited case has an advantage
to Will, where he might not lose his properties. The judge declared that a binding relationship
has to be struck within the two parties for a trust to be struck. It is for this reason that the Teather
company had to pay the settlement amount. Will therefore has not struck a binding partnership
relationship with Steve.
21 Riches, J., 2014. Optimize Equity and Trusts. Routledge.pg 112-113
22 Herring, J., 2015. Beginning Family Law. Routledge. Pg. 129