By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

It seems to me that that was not what was contemplated at all and that one is stillin the same dilemma and difficulty, because here the unseparated out three outthree quarter would then be the settled property and not a part of the settledproperty because the life interest would have had no connection with theseparated out quarter. So I do not think counsel for the Crown’s counter attackadvances his position at all Accordingly it seems to me that the argument ofcounsel for the Crown proves too much; if he were correct as I see it there25 (12)would not be any necessity for s at allTherefore on those two short grounds but especially the first one namely that theword part in my judgment properly includes and was obviously so far as I can seehaving regard to the way in which sub-s (4) was framed intended to include afraction-the case for the trustees appears to me to be established and theappeal of the Crown equally in my view is doomed to failureAppeal dismissedSolicitors: Solicitor of inland Revenue Stanley’s Simpson north agents forChapmanAMERICAN CYANAMID CO V ITHICON LTDHOUSE OF LORDSLORD DIPLOCK VISCOUNT KILHORNE LORD CROSS OF CHELSEA LORD SALMON AND LORDEDMUND DAVIES12 TH 14 TH November 1974 5 TH February 1975Injunction – interlocutory – principle governing grant- prima facie case- seriousquestion to be tried – Unnecessary for application to establish prima facie case –Open to court to con-seder whither on balance of convenience interlocutoryrelief should be granted provided claim not frivolous or vexatious.Injunction- interlocutory-principle governing grant – Balance of convenience -matters to be considered by court in determining whether balance ofconvenience lies infamous of granting or refusing relief296