Revised Script for presentation.
2000 words, (15mins + 5min Q&A)
Critically assess the reasoning of the Supreme Court in PJS v Abogados de accidentes de auto  UKSC 26 by making specific reference to their Lordships discussion of the test opined in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd  AC 396 which ought to be applied when considering an application for the grant ( or otherwise) of an interim injunction.
Hi there, my name is Waqqas Anwar and in this presentation I will be analysing the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision in PJS v News Group Newspapers ltd 2016, by making reference to the test set out in the American Cyanamid v Ethicon ltd 1975 case. The Supreme Court in PJS ruled on the validity and application of the tests set out in American, when deciding whether an interim injunction is appropriate relief.
I will firstly explore the SC’s reasoning for dismissing the CA’s application of the ECHR. Secondly I will explore the American ‘balance of probabilities’ theory which the SC rule was incorrectly placed by the CA.
Lord Justice Jackson had said that Section 12 of the Human Rights Act “enhances the weight which [ECHR] article 10 rights carry in the balancing exercise. Secondly, it raises the hurdle which the claimant [PJS] must overcome in order to obtain an interim injunction” ( EWCA Civ 393 para 40).