... there is less need for a judge to concern himself with proof of irreparable harm or to weigh the balance of convenience nicely. The point was put in unambiguous terms of Megarry, J. (as he then was), in Hamstead v. Diomedous,  3 All E.R. 545, when he said (at p. 550): "Where there is a plain and uncontested breach of a clear covenant not to do a particular thing, and the covenantor promptly begins to do what he has promised not to do, then in the absence of special circumstances it seems to me that the sooner he is compelled to keep his promise the better ... I see no reason for allowing a covenantor who stands in clear breach of an express prohibition to have: a holiday from the enforcement of his obligation until the trial. It may be that there is no direct authority on this point; certainly none has been cited. If so, it is high time that there be such authority; and now there is." . . .
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.