## Facts

- The case arose from a dispute over the occupation of property by unknown persons.
- The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing their occupation, alleging trespass and claiming it caused irreparable harm.
- The court was required to determine if the plaintiff satisfied the legal requirements for an interim injunction and whether summary proceedings were appropriate to resolve the matter.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of an interim injunction.
2. Whether the procedural requirements for obtaining an interim injunction had been met, including urgency and adequacy of evidence.
3. Whether the case could be resolved summarily without a full trial or if a full trial was necessary.

## Decision

- The court applied established legal principles to assess the claim for an interim injunction, focusing on the presence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
- After analyzing the evidence and procedural compliance, the court held that the plaintiff met the necessary standards.
- The interim injunction was granted to prevent the defendants from continuing occupation.
- The court found that, given the urgency and the nature of the relief sought, summary proceedings were appropriate in the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- The equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions is grounded in the maxim that equity acts in personam, enabling courts to compel or restrain conduct as necessary.
- Interim injunctions are discretionary and require (i) a serious question to be tried, (ii) consideration of the balance of convenience, and (iii) that damages are not an adequate alternative remedy.
- Procedural compliance, including timely application and clear evidence of urgency or irreparable harm, is essential for the court's discretion to grant relief.
- Summary proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 24 are suitable where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the matter can be resolved without full trial, provided the evidence is clear and compelling.

## Conclusion

McPhail v Persons, Names Unknown [1973] Ch 447 is a leading authority on the grant of interim injunctions and use of summary proceedings, reinforcing the need for urgency, strong evidence, and procedural adherence where immediate relief is sought to prevent irreparable harm pending a full trial.
