Legal Definitions - relative-convenience doctrine

The relative-convenience doctrine is a legal principle that courts may use when deciding whether to grant an equitable remedy, such as an injunction (a court order to do or stop doing something). Under this doctrine, a court might refuse to issue such an order if granting it would cause significant hardship or inconvenience to one party, while denying it would cause little to no inconvenience or harm to the other party.

In essence, the court weighs the disproportionate impact of its decision on both sides. If the burden of granting the requested relief far outweighs the benefit to the party seeking it (especially if the harm to the other party is minimal), the court may choose to deny the remedy.

Here are some examples illustrating the relative-convenience doctrine:

• Property Encroachment: Imagine a homeowner builds a new detached garage, and due to a surveying error, a small corner of the garage, about six inches, inadvertently extends onto a neighbor's undeveloped, unused side yard. The neighbor sues, demanding an injunction to force the homeowner to demolish and rebuild the garage to remove the encroachment.

  Application: Demolishing and rebuilding the garage would cost the homeowner tens of thousands of dollars, cause significant disruption, and potentially delay other construction. The six-inch encroachment, however, causes virtually no practical harm or inconvenience to the neighbor, as the land is unused, and the encroachment doesn't block access, views, or future development. A court applying the relative-convenience doctrine might deny the injunction, finding that the immense hardship on the homeowner far outweighs the minimal, if any, benefit to the neighbor.

• Business Operations and Nuisance: A small, family-owned manufacturing plant has been operating in a rural area for several decades, providing local employment. A new resident moves into a nearby property and complains about a faint, intermittent hum from the plant's ventilation system, seeking an injunction to force the plant to cease operations until the hum is completely eliminated.

  Application: Eliminating the hum might require a complete overhaul or relocation of the plant's ventilation system, costing millions of dollars and potentially forcing the plant to shut down temporarily or permanently, leading to significant job losses and economic hardship for the owners and employees. The hum, while present, is barely audible from the new resident's property and causes only minor, subjective annoyance. A court might apply the relative-convenience doctrine, concluding that the immense hardship on the plant, its employees, and the local economy far outweighs the minimal inconvenience experienced by the new resident, and thus deny the injunction.

• Public Infrastructure Project: A city is constructing a new public park, including a walking trail designed to connect several neighborhoods. A small segment of the planned trail inadvertently crosses a tiny, unused corner of a private property owner's overgrown backyard. The property owner seeks an injunction to halt the entire park construction project until the trail is rerouted to avoid their property.

  Application: Halting the entire park construction would cause significant delays, cost the city millions in penalties and extended project costs, and delay public access to a much-anticipated community amenity. Rerouting the trail would also be costly and cause delays. The encroachment on the private property, however, is minimal, affects an unused area, and causes no practical harm to the owner. A court, considering the relative convenience, would likely deny the injunction, as the immense public and financial inconvenience of stopping the project far outweighs the negligible inconvenience to the private property owner.