kinds of damages and remedies

3. The expression “measure of damages “means the scale or rule by reference to which the amount of
damages to be recovered is , in any given case , to be assessed .damages may rise to any amount or
they may dwindle down to being merely nominal. The law has not laid down what shall be the
measure of damages in actions of torts , the measure is vague and uncertain , depending upon a vast
variety of facts , causes and circumstances . The Latin phrase , restitutio in integram , meaning the
restoration of an injured person to the position they were in before the tortfeasor's conduct. It also
states that if there be any special damage which is attributable to the wrongful act that special damage
must be averred and proved .for example , if the plaintiff’s car is damaged in collision with the
defendant’s car , which was negligently driven the plaintiff in addition to cost of repair may be
entitled to recover reasonable charges for hiring a car for his use during the period his car was not
available for use as it was undergoing repair .But restitution is seldom , if at all , really possible and
the law provides only for notional restitution , that is restitution as nearly as may be by award of
compensation . in accident cases , it has been held that the grant of compensation comes under the
realm of torts which is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum , i.e. a person entitled to
damages should , as nearly as possible , get the sum of money which would put him in the same
position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong . this principle has been extended to
medical negligence .to determine liability , when causation is in issue , it has to be established on the
basis of balance of probabilities and not on the basis of percentage of probability.

4. When liability is established , the court comes to assessment of damages , which depends on its
judgement of what will happen in the future or what would have happened in the future if the tort
would not have happened in the past , the court should analyze the chance of its happening in the
future and whether they are more or less or even , to the amount of damages it awards . the high court
of Australia has applied this theory in a case where the plaintiff was employed as a labourer in the
defendant’s meat works . in consequence of the negligence of the defendant the plaintiff contracted
brucellosis leading to a degenerative spinal condition and neurosis rendering him unemployable for
rest of his life .It was also found that independently of the negligence it was ‘likely ‘ that the plaintiff
would have been suffering from a similar neurotic condition making him unemployable by 1982 . the
supreme court of Queensland allowed damages to the plaintiff for economic loss and pain and
suffering only upto 1982 . the high court of Australia reversed the judgement of the supreme court
holding that he plaintiff was entitled to get damages for economic loss , pin and suffering and cost of
care for the rest of his life , subject to this , that those damages had to be reduced to take account of
the chance that factors , unconnected with the defendant’s negligence , might have bought on a
similar neurotic condition . where a wrong has been committed , the wrong – doer must suffer from
impossibility of accurately ascertaining the amount of damages . but the plaintiff must give the best
evidence to prove damages .If damage has resulted from two or three causes , as from an act of god
as well as a negligent act of a party , then the award of damages should be apportioned to compensate
only the injury caused by the negligent act . in a case , due to the embankment by railways , the flood
waters of a river were sent back and flowed over the land of the plaintiff , doing some injury ; had the
embankment not been constructed the waters would have flowed in a different way , but would have
reached the plaintiff’s land , and would have done damage to a lesser extent . it was held that the
measure of damages recoverable by the plaintiff against the railway company was the difference only
between the two amounts .

5.  Contemptuous damages are awarded when it is believed an action
should never have been brought when the plaintiff has a legal claim but
there is no moral justification for it or he morally deserved what the
defendant did to him , the court may award half a penny or a paisa
showing its disapproval of the conduct of the plaintiff.
 Nominal damages are awarded where the purpose of the action is merely
to establish a right , no substantial harm or loss having been suffered ,
for example , in cases of infringement or absolute rights of personal
security and property . nominal damages are so called because they bear
no relation even to the cost and trouble of suing , and the sum awarded is
so small that it may be said to have “no existence in point of quantity “,
eg , one anna , one shilling .

6.  Ordinary damages are awarded where it is necessary to compensate the
plaintiff fairly for the injury he has in fact sustained . these are also called
compensatory damages . whatever sum is awarded , whether large or small ,
must afford a fair measure of compensation to the plaintiff with reference to
the actual harm sustained by him . the law does not aim at restitution but
compensation, and the true test , is , what sum would afford , under the
circumstances of the particular case , a fair and reasonable compensation to
the maximum extent . the measure of reparation or damages for any injury
should be assessed as nearly as possible at a sum of money which would put
the injured party in the same position as he would have been if he would not
have sustained the injury .
 Exemplary damages are awarded not to compensate the plaintiff but to
punish the defendant and to deter him from similar conduct in the future .
the supreme court of India has held that oppressive , arbitrary or
unconstitutional action of the government or its servants calls for exemplary
damages .

7. INTRODUCTION
In tort law, damages are a legal remedy designed to compensate
a person for a harm or loss they have suffered due to another
party's wrongful act. There are two main categories of damages
in torts: general damages and special (or specific) damages.
These categories help distinguish between different types of
harm and the compensation provided for each.

8. General Damages:
General damages are also known as non-pecuniary or non-
economic damages. They are meant to compensate the plaintiff
for losses that are not easily quantifiable in monetary terms and
are more abstract in nature.
These damages are awarded for intangible losses such as pain
and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and
damage to reputation.

9. General damages are not based on specific financial evidence,
but rather on the judge or jury's assessment of what would be
fair compensation for the plaintiff's non-economic losses.
The purpose of general damages is to provide a sense of justice
and recognition for the plaintiff's suffering or harm.

10. Specific (Special) Damages:
Special damages, on the other hand, are specific, quantifiable,
and direct financial losses that the plaintiff has incurred as a
result of the defendant's wrongful act.
These damages include out-of-pocket expenses, such as
medical bills, property damage, lost wages, and any other
measurable economic losses directly related to the tortious act.

11. Special damages require concrete evidence and documentation
to support the claims made by the plaintiff. This evidence may
include receipts, medical bills, pay stubs, or other financial
records.
Unlike general damages, special damages are meant to make
the plaintiff whole by reimbursing them for the actual financial
costs they incurred due to the defendant's actions.

12.  Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages are awarded in most personal injury lawsuits in Ontario. Pecuniary
damages encompass the quantifiable losses suffered by an accident victim, or the specific losses. They are
measured in financial terms and calculated using bills, receipts and other financial statements. Examples of
pecuniary damages include:
 Medical costs. This includes money spent on an ambulance, hospital stay, doctor’s appointments, medications
and medical devices. It also includes future care costs for a long-term disability.
 Income losses. Wages and employment benefits lost because the plaintiff cannot immediately return to work as
a result of the accident or injury.
 Lost future capacity to earn. If the victim suffered a long-term or permanent disability and cannot return to
work in the same capacity, he or she can recover a lifetime of estimated lost wages.
 Property damage. The price to repair any property lost, damaged or destroyed in the accident, such as vehicle
damage in an auto accident case.
 Any other financial expenditures associated with the accident can also be classed as pecuniary damages,
including court costs, legal fees and travel expenses.

13.  Non-pecuniary damages, on the other hand, are losses that cannot be quantified in monetary terms. They
are the intangible or general losses suffered by an individual. In general, claims involving serious injuries,
permanent disability and loss of life will receive more in non-pecuniary damages than minor accident cases.
Examples of these damages include:
 Physical pain and suffering. The physical pain or chronic pain caused by an injury.
 Emotional distress. Any psychological trauma, depression, anxiety, inconvenience, mental anguish or
other emotional damage caused by the accident or injury.
 Impairment. Compensation awarded for any impairment of the victim’s physical or mental capabilities,
as well as the impairment of relationships with others.
 Non-pecuniary damages are not as straightforward or easy to calculate as pecuniary damages. Rather than
relying on bills and receipts, the courts will look at how greatly the incident has impacted the victim. The
value of these damages will be based on injury severity, any permanent disability, the victim’s age and
other factors.

14. How the Damages will be Calculated:
There are some rules which are applied in certain conditions for calculating the amount of
damages in a case.
Damages in case of a reduction of life span:
Whenever due to the tort committed by the defendant, the lifespan of the plaintiff is reduced, the
amount of damages which will be awarded to him is calculated without taking into consideration
his social status. The damages are not provided for the loss of the years of life but are provided
for a happy life. The happiness of life is calculated according to the subjective expectation of a
reasonable man and not of the expectations of the plaintiff or how he thought his life was going to
be. The damages which are awarded to the
plaintiff are moderate.
Illustration: B suffers a severe injury due to the tort of A which has caused his life span to be
reduced to 10 years. Here even though B was a rich person and enjoyed a good social status, the
damages which will be provided to him will be done with the perspective of the requirements of a
reasonable man.

15. Damages in case of death of a person:
In calculating the amount of damages in cases where a person’s death is caused, two
theories are used by the Courts:
Interest Theory
In Interest theory, the Court determines the loss suffered by the dependant as a result of
the death of the person on whom he depended. After such amount is determined, a lump
sum payment is made which if deposited should provide that much amount of interest
which is equal to the sum which has been determined by the Court.
Illustration: If A dies by the tort of B leaving behind C and the Court determines that
the monthly loss suffered by C is Rs.5,000. Then the Court will order the deposit of
such amount from which the interest which is earned, is equal to Rs.5,000.

16. Multiplier Theory:
In this theory if there is any loss which is likely to occur in the future as a result of the
tort committed by the defendant, that likely loss is multiplied with a multiplier which
indicates the number of years for which such a loss is likely to continue and the result
of such a multiplication is the amount of damages which is awarded by the court.
Illustration: If A dies due to the tort of B leaving behind C who knows that she has to
pay the mortgage money for their house for the next five years. Here, by applying the
multiplier theory, the amount of mortgage which has to be paid will be calculated and
will be awarded to C.
Case on another slide: In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bindu & Ors,
The deceased was riding a motorcycle when he was severely injured due to colliding with a
tractor, which was driven negligently by its driver. The Court applied the multiple theory and fixed the
multiplier at 13 with 6% interest p.a., for the award of damages.

17. Injury to Property:
If a chattel be lost or destroyed by a wrongful act of the defendant, the measure of
damages is the value of the chattel, but if the chattel be only injured, then the
depreciation in its value is the measure, with an extra allowance for the loss of the use of
the chattel while it is being repaired or replaced. The measure of damages where goods
shipped are lost by fire would be the market value of the goods when and where the
goods were damaged less the proceeds of the sale of the damaged goods, and in addition
any freight, insurance, premia, and other incidental expenditure which may have been
lost, A person to whom a wrong is done is entitled to full compensation for restoring the
thing damaged to its original condition. This applies equally to a private person as to a
Corporation or trustee.

18. Measure of Damages in Negligence Cases:
In negligence cases, the goal is to make the injured party "whole" again, which means
they should be put in the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred.
The measure of damages typically includes:
 Actual Cost of Repair or Replacement: This is often the primary measure of
damages in negligence cases involving property damage. If the damaged property
can be repaired or replaced, the defendant is typically liable for the reasonable cost
of such repairs or replacement.
 Diminution in Value: In some cases, the property may not be fully restored to its
original condition even after repairs. In such instances, the injured party may be
entitled to compensation for the reduction in the property's value, known as
"diminution in value."
 Loss of Use: If the damaged property cannot be used during the period of repair or
replacement, the injured party may be entitled to compensation for the loss of use.
This could include expenses incurred for renting a substitute or lost rental income for
income-producing property.

19. Reasonable Costs and Expenses: The injured party may also recover reasonable costs
and expenses directly related to the damage, such as towing fees, storage costs, or
temporary lodging expenses if the property is a home.
Case: Hadley v. Baxendale (1854): While not a property damage case, Hadley v.
Baxendale is a classic case illustrating the principles of damages in negligence. In this
case, a mill's crankshaft broke, and the plaintiff sent it to the defendant, a carrier, for
repair. The defendant was unaware that the mill's operation was critical to the plaintiff's
business. Due to a delayed delivery, the plaintiff suffered business losses. The issue was
whether the defendant was liable for these consequential losses.
The court held that damages must flow naturally from the breach or be within the parties'
contemplation at the time of contract formation. The defendant was only liable for
damages that were foreseeable, and in this case, the consequential losses were not
foreseeable. This principle of foreseeability and direct causation is applicable to property
damage cases in negligence as well.

20. 2. Measure of Damages in Intentional Torts:
In cases of intentional torts, the measure of damages can be more complex and can go
beyond mere compensation for the property damage. Intentional torts involve
deliberate harmful actions, and the injured party may be entitled to additional forms of
damages, including:
 Compensatory Damages: Similar to negligence cases, the injured party can seek
compensation for the actual cost of repair or replacement, diminution in value, and
any other losses directly related to the property damage.
Punitive Damages: In some jurisdictions, if the defendant's actions were particularly
egregious or malicious, punitive damages may be available. Punitive damages are
intended to punish the wrongdoer and deter future wrongful conduct.
Case: Garratt v. Dailey (1955): In this case, the plaintiff, a five-year-old child,
suffered burns when the defendant, a seven-year-old child, removed a chair from under
the plaintiff as she was about to sit. The issue was whether the defendant's actions were
intentional, and if so, what damages should be awarded.

21. The court found that the defendant's actions were intentional, and the plaintiff was
entitled to compensatory damages. While this case doesn't involve property damage, it
highlights the principle that in intentional torts, compensatory damages can include the
actual cost of repair, diminution in value, and any other losses directly related to the
harm caused. This principle applies to property damage in intentional torts as well.
3. Measure of Damages for Strict Liability:
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party liable for damage caused, regardless
of fault or intent. In cases involving strict liability, the measure of damages is typically
similar to that in negligence cases. The injured party is entitled to compensation for the
actual cost of repair or replacement, diminution in value, loss of use, and reasonable
costs and expenses.
It's important to note that the specific measure of damages can vary by jurisdiction and
may be influenced by case law and statutory provisions. In some cases, the injured party
may have the option to choose between different measures of damages, such as the
actual cost of repair or the diminution in value.

22. In complex cases, expert witnesses, such as appraisers, may be called upon to assess the
property damage and help determine the appropriate measure of damages. The goal is to
ensure that the injured party is adequately compensated for their losses and that the
defendant is held responsible for their wrongful actions.
Case: Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944): In this product liability case, the
plaintiff, a waitress, was injured when a Coca-Cola bottle exploded in her hand. The
plaintiff alleged that the bottle was defective and sought damages for her injuries. The
issue was whether strict liability applied and what damages were recoverable.
The court found in favor of the plaintiff and established the doctrine of strict liability
for defective products. The plaintiff was entitled to compensatory damages, which
included the cost of her medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. While
this case primarily addresses personal injury, the principle of strict liability can also be
applied to property damage cases, where the injured party can seek compensation for
repair or replacement costs, diminution in value, and related expenses.

23. Please note that while the cases provided don't specifically involve property damage, they
demonstrate the fundamental principles of negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability
in tort law. The measure of damages in property damage cases follows similar principles,
with the specific application of damages varying depending on the circumstances of the
case, jurisdiction, and applicable laws. It is important to consult with legal professionals
to understand how these principles apply to specific property damage cases.
In summary, the measure of damages in cases of property damage in torts is a critical
component of determining the compensation owed to the injured party. It seeks to restore
the injured party to their pre-damage financial position and can include the actual cost of
repair, diminution in value, loss of use, and reasonable costs and expenses. Depending on
the type of tort involved, additional forms of damages, such as punitive damages in
intentional torts, may also be available. Legal professionals play a crucial role in
evaluating the specific circumstances of each case and ensuring that the injured party's
rights are protected and upheld under the law.

24. Prospective damages, also known as future damages, are a type of damages
sought in legal cases where the plaintiff is seeking compensation for losses or
harm they are expected to incur in the future as a result of the defendant's
wrongful actions. These damages can arise in various areas of law, including
contract disputes, personal injury cases, intellectual property disputes, and
more. Here are some common types of cases where prospective damages
may be sought:
Personal Injury Cases:
In personal injury cases, prospective damages often include:
 Future medical expenses for ongoing treatment, surgeries, therapy, or medications.
 Future loss of earnings if the plaintiff's ability to work is permanently impaired.
 Compensation for future pain and suffering, emotional distress, or reduced quality of life.

25. • Employment and Labour Cases:
In cases involving employment disputes, prospective damages can be sought for:
- Lost future earnings or benefits resulting from wrongful termination or discrimination.
- Damages for future employment opportunities that were denied due to the defendant's
actions.
• Intellectual Property Cases:
In intellectual property disputes, prospective damages might involve:
- Loss of future profits from the unauthorized use of intellectual property, such as
patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
- Compensation for potential future market share or licensing opportunities.

26. • Contract Disputes:
In contract disputes, prospective damages may include:
- Lost profits that the plaintiff would have earned in the future if the contract had been
properly fulfilled.
- The cost of mitigating future damages, such as finding alternative suppliers or
contractors.
• Environmental and Property Damage Cases:
In cases involving environmental harm or property damage, prospective damages may
encompass:
- The cost of future environmental cleanup or remediation efforts.
- Future costs of repairing or restoring damaged property.

27.  Lucas v. Hamm (1961): In this landmark case, the California Supreme
Court addressed the issue of prospective damages in a legal malpractice
claim. The court ruled that an attorney who had negligently drafted a will
could be liable for the prospective damages resulting from the error,
including the loss of an inheritance the beneficiary would have received.
 Petersen v. Horen (2008): This Oregon case involved prospective damages
in a personal injury claim. The plaintiff, who was injured in a car accident,
was awarded damages not only for past medical expenses but also for
anticipated future medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, and lost earning
capacity.

28. Continuing damages, in tort law, are damages that have already occurred due to the defendant's
wrongful act or negligence and are expected to continue in the future. These damages are
ongoing and persist after the initial injury. Common examples of continuing damages in tort
cases include:
 Ongoing medical expenses: If the plaintiff requires ongoing medical treatment or
rehabilitation.
 Pain and suffering: If the plaintiff continues to experience pain and emotional distress.
 Property damage: If the defendant's actions have caused damage to the plaintiff's property, and
the damage is ongoing.
 When a plaintiff seeks both prospective and continuing damages in a tort case, they are aiming
to recover compensation for both the harm they have already suffered and the harm they are
likely to suffer in the future as a direct result of the defendant's actions. Proving both types of
damages often requires expert testimony, medical assessments, and other evidence to establish
the extent and likelihood of future harm.

29.  Laramore v. Singleton (1977): In this case, the plaintiff's property was
damaged when a nearby reservoir flooded during a storm due to the
defendant's negligent maintenance. The court ruled that the plaintiff was
entitled to continuing damages for the recurrent flooding and the ongoing
harm to the property.
 Williamson v. Waldman (2002): This case involved medical malpractice
where a surgical sponge was negligently left inside the plaintiff's body. The
court allowed continuing damages for the pain, suffering, and medical
expenses related to the ongoing injuries and complications caused by the
foreign object.

30. Here I will be focusing on the law relating to liability for negligently
inflicting psychiatric damages to any individual. This type of tort relating to
psychiatric injury in which defendant claims compensation gained the
popular interest and has gained widespread media coverage also.
 Psychiatric Injury- It is also known as Nervous Shock, used to describe a
claim where the claimant might claim compensation even though she has
not clearly received any physical harm.

31.  Psychiatric Damages- According to medical conditions which
defines as, circulatory failure marked by a sudden fall of blood
pressure and resulting in pallor, sweating, fast (but weak) pulse, and
sometimes collapse.
For this condition to occur major causes are disease, injury, and
psychological trauma. In shock, the blood pressure falls below that
necessary to supply the tissues of the body, especially to the brain.
Treatment depends on the cause.
Two conditions needs to be fulfilled in order to claim compensation
under psychiatric damages.

32. These two conditions are:
 A recognizable psychiatric illness
According to Lord Bridge- To claim compensation under this it should be
established that person is not suffering from only grief but it is positive
psychiatric illness which is recognizable which would include morbid
depression, hysterical personal disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder,
pathological stress disorder and chronic fatigue syndrome and there should
also be one medical witness or expert proving the above facts. There will be
no compensation for mere anxiety, emotional outbreak etc.
 Test of Reasonable Foreseeability
The law commission considered that the psychiatric damages should be
tested beyond the simple foreseeability test and reasonable foreseeability
should be used. First time it was used in the case of Delieu v White & Sons.

33. • In this case the pregnant wife of A.R. Delieu was seated behind the bar of her
husband’s public-house when the defendants’ servant negligently drove a horse driven
van so as to direct it in the public house and due to which plaintiff suffered a nervous
shock that caused her a illness and consequently the pre-mature birth of an idiot baby
and for this plaintiff claims compensation so it was decided by the court that plaintiff
should be able to recover only when danger is reasonable enough to be nervous or
receive mental shock and here in this case plaintiff was apprehended fear for his safety
so it was actionable and should be granted compensation.
Point which should be noticed from this case is:
• In applying the reasonable foreseeability test the defendant must presume that the
plaintiff is a prudent woman who has a normal standard of foreseeability. Then
when the plaintiff has established her prudent nature and that it would be normal for a
reasonable woman to suffer the nervous shock she suffered in the particular case, she
is entitled to recover full compensation.

34. • Thus we see that the judge must see herself to be a reasonable, prudent woman, while
deciding the cases of psychiatric damages. In the words of Lord Bridge, the judge should
decide a particular case relying on her own opinion as that of a reasonably educated
woman.
Cases in Indian Jurisdiction
• As Indian courts were very liberal regarding the cases of psychiatric damages but this
mentality gets changed when Madras High court given the decision in the case of
Halligua v Mohansundarum and held by the court that body was controlled by the
nervous system and even though there if there is no harm done to the party physically yet
the nervous could be affected and granted compensation.
• The nature of courts somewhat extended much in another case called Lucknow
Development Authority v M.K. Gupta. In this case damages were given to the plaintiff
because the plaintiff gets the nervous shock after getting harassed for government
officials.

35. Indian Approach on Cases of Psychiatric Damages
• In India jurisdiction and liability in tort law is not very developed but there are so
many cases through which compensation is given to the plaintiff and from these
cases only liability if psychiatric damages evolved. Even though India does not
have any legislation regarding nervous shock but cases are decided by court on the
basis of reasonability of prudent person.
• There was a case named as Jose Philip Mamphilli v Premier Automobile Limited
in this case maximum compensation was granted to the plaintiff for mental agony,
in India. A brand new car was sold to the plaintiff (Mr. Jose) which was defective
and as a result of this Mr.Jose suffered from a nervous shock and when the
plaintiff complains for it, manufacture denies his liability by giving reason that it
is not his fault since it is very trivial matter.
• Court held that plaintiff is entitled to compensation as there is no doubt that he
will suffer from mental agony after paying so much amount and getting a
defective car. In this case court granted 40,000 cases now from this cases it was
difficult to understand that how much compensation to be awarded to the plaintiff.

36. Laws Relating To Nervous Shock In Common Law Countries
• Liability related to psychiatric damages is different in different jurisdictions and hence
in common law countries liabilities are different as from India.
USA: In USA liabilities are decided on the basis of case laws.
UK: Protection of Harassments Act, 1997.
UK Jurisdiction
• In England cases of nervous shock are dealt by the Protection of Harassments Act,
1997. Section 1(2) of this Act it is written that:
For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question
ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in
possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to
harassment of the other.

37. USA Jurisdiction
In USA there is no such law which deals with the cases of psychiatric damages as
there is legislation in UK which deals this type of cases. On the basis of judicial
precedents cases of psychiatric damages are adjudicated. On the basis of
reasonable foreseeability of prudent many cases are decided. In USA judges do not
distinguish between physical and psychiatric injury.
The important aspect here is foreseeability in a case called Consolidated Railway
Corporation v Alan Carisle . In this case a crew member got compensation on the
basis that he was forced to work in unfavourable conditions due to which he got
emotional distress.
On the basis of the case mentioned above it can be infer that even though no
legislation is there to regulate these cases but the cases has been decided on the
basis of reasonable prudent person and the judicial precedents.

38. An injunctive remedy in tort law is a court-ordered equitable remedy that
requires a party to either cease a particular action or take specific actions to
prevent harm or further harm to another party's rights. In the context of torts,
injunctive relief is typically sought when the traditional legal remedy of
monetary damages is insufficient to fully address the harm caused by the
defendant's wrongful actions.
Injunctive remedies aim to prevent ongoing or future harm and can be used
in various types of tort cases, including but not limited to the following:
 Nuisance: In cases of private nuisance, where one party's actions
substantially and unreasonably interfere with another party's use and
enjoyment of their property, a court may issue an injunction to stop the
nuisance, such as stopping noisy activities or removing offensive odours.

39. • Trespass: In some cases, a trespasser might be ordered by a court to stop trespassing
on another person's property. An injunction can be issued to prevent further
incursions.
• Defamation: In cases of defamation, where false statements harm a person's
reputation, a court may issue an injunction to prevent the defendant from making
further defamatory statements.
• Intellectual Property: In cases of intellectual property infringement, such as
copyright, trademark, or patent infringement, an injunctive remedy can be used to
prevent the defendant from continuing to use the infringing intellectual property.
• Public Nuisance: In cases of public nuisance, which involve actions that harm the
public at large, a court may issue an injunction to stop the activity causing the harm.
For example, an injunction could be used to stop a business from emitting pollutants
that harm the surrounding community.
• Injunctions Against Harassment or Stalking: In personal injury cases involving
harassment, stalking, or other forms of tortious conduct, a court may issue restraining
orders or injunctions to protect the victim from further harm.

40. Injunctive relief is considered an extraordinary remedy and is not granted automatically.
To obtain an injunction, the plaintiff must typically show that:
• They have a valid legal right that is being violated by the defendant.
• They are suffering irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated through
monetary damages.
• There is no adequate remedy at law (i.e., monetary damages would not be sufficient to
remedy the harm).
• The balance of equities favours granting the injunction.
• Issuing the injunction is in the public interest, if applicable.
Courts carefully weigh these factors and exercise discretion when determining whether
to grant injunctive relief in tort cases. If an injunction is granted, the defendant will be
legally required to comply with the court's order, and failure to do so can result in
contempt of court sanctions.

41. 1.Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Leo Burnett India Pvt. Ltd. (2003): This case
involved a copyright dispute where an injunction was sought to prevent the
unauthorized use of a television program's concept. The court granted an
interim injunction to protect the plaintiff's copyright until the matter was
decided.
2.Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (2013): In this case,
Hindustan Unilever sought an injunction to prevent Reckitt Benckiser from
airing certain advertisements that allegedly disparaged Hindustan
Unilever's product. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the
defendant from broadcasting those advertisements.