By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Corwn in general, then s 21 (2) would appear to prevent inqunctive relief beinggranted, but as Professor Sir William Wade QC has pointed our (Injunction reliefagainst the Crown and ministers (1991) 107 LQR) there are likely to be fewsituations when there will he statutory duties which place a duty on the Crown ingeneral instead of on a named minister. In broad terms therefore saying that it isonly in those stuations where prior to the Act no injunctive relief could beobtained that s 21 prevents an injunction being granted can summarize the effectof the Act. In other words it restricts the effect of the procedural reforms that inimplementedso that they did not extend the power of the courts to grantinjunction. This is the least that cars be expected from legislation intended tomake it easier for proceedings to be brought against the Crown.It is now necessary refer to Merricks v Heathcoat – Amory (1955) 2 All Er 453,(1955) Ch 567, a case which requires careful consideration because of theimportance attached to it, as we shall see later, by Lord Bridge in Factortane.In Merricks the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the Minister ofAgriculature, Fisheries and Food both in his personal cacity and in his capacityas minister a corporation sole constituted by stature. The injunction required theminister to withdraw the draft of a statutory scheme regulating the marketing ofpotatoes which had been laid by the minister before parliament for approvalwhen acting in his capacity as minister and also restraining him from seekingapproval of the scheme by Parliament. An application was made on vehalf of theminister in stricke out the proceedings as being misconceived. It was argued by577