Rich v Howe

In the case of Rich v Howe, the plaintiff, a prisoner, sought interlocutory mandatory injunctions that would effectively result in a merits decision being made. The defendant, the Commissioner of Corrective Services, was responsible for the administration of the prison where the plaintiff was incarcerated. The plaintiff's application was for the repair of an in-cell computer, the reinstatement of a scanning facility, and the provision of a supervised email facility. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application for interlocutory mandatory injunctions was appropriate and whether the relief sought should be granted.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's application identified a reviewable decision or an error in a reviewable decision. The court also examined whether a serious question was to be tried on the merits of the plaintiff's application, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the relief sought. The court found that the plaintiff had not identified a reviewable decision or an error in a reviewable decision, and that no serious question was to be tried on the merits of the plaintiff's application. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the relief sought.

The court refused the plaintiff's application for interlocutory mandatory injunctions. The court found that the plaintiff had not satisfied the necessary criteria for the grant of such relief. The court emphasised that interlocutory mandatory injunctions should not be granted where they effectively make a merits decision, and that the plaintiff had not identified a reviewable decision or an error in a reviewable decision. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the relief sought, as it would have had an impact on the administration of the prison and the safety and security of the prison population. The court made no orders in relation to the plaintiff's application.