ChD 13 July 1989 A motion by plaintiffs (F) seeking a mandatory interlocutory injunction against the defendants (G), requiring G to allow F to enter premises to carry out improvements . It had been agreed that F would grant a lease to G on completion of building works. G was to carry these out to the satisfaction of F. G prepared a specification submitted to F. Disputes arose, F claiming they had approved the specification; G saying that approval was only very general and subject to approval to details before work could be carried out. There was therefore a triable issue as to whether G was contractually obliged to proceed. ChD held, that taking everything into account, including whether G was really in breach of contract or not, the question whether G would have a right under the lease if executed to enter and do the work, the irreversible effect of an interlocutory order and the balance of inconvenience between the parties, this was not the case for a mandatory order. Motion dismis