Kidu v Fifer

The case of Kidu v Fifer involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Kidu, and the defendants, Fifer, regarding the use of film footage taken by the first defendant. Kidu alleged that she was assured by the first defendant that the footage would only be used for her film school course. The documentary was completed and was to be shown at an international documentary film festival. The rights to the documentary were subsequently assigned to the second and then the third defendants. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the screening of the documentary, alleging that the defendants were aware of her assurances and had unconscionably resiled from them.

The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the assurances made to the plaintiff and whether the first defendant had unconscionably resiled from them. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted based on the balance of convenience, questions of hardship and other relevant factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the assurances made to the plaintiff and whether the first defendant had unconscionably resiled from them. The court held that the balance of convenience, questions of hardship and other relevant factors favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court ordered that an interlocutory injunction be granted to the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from screening the documentary. The court further directed that the terms of any injunction be on the usual terms, including security for costs.