A more recent version of these Interim Injunctions notes – written by City Law School students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our BPTC Civil Ligitation Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Interim Injunctions Procedure
Made with application notice. Must state:
- What order A is seeking, and
- Date, time, place of hearing, if hearing needed. Application notice should be served on R. If A makes a without notice application there must be good reasons (eg immediacy of remedy sought or initial confidentiality of the issue concerned) for not giving notice. A without notice application should contain a return date. Application notice must include evidence in a WS or SoC (both signed by a statement of truth) setting out:
- The facts upon which A relies, AND
- All material facts of which the court should be made aware (full and frank disclosure) May be made at any time. It should be made as soon as it becomes apparent that it is necessary. D may not apply for interim injunction unless D has filed Aos or Defence. If application made with notice, it should be made not less than 3 clear days before application will be dealt with. If there is not sufficient time to give notice, informal notice should be given. American Cyanamid
Principles applied by the court Is the case a serious issue to be tried?
All that needs to be shown is that the claim has substance and reality, and is not frivolous or vexatious.
Are damages sufficient to compensate the claimant?
Would damages be an adequate remedy for the claimant ('C') at trial if an injunction should have been awarded but wasn't?
Examples when damages not adequate: (i) Defendant ('D') unlikely to be able to pay the sum likely to be awarded at trial; (ii) The wrong is irreparable; or (iii)Damages difficult to assess - loss of goodwill or
Are damages sufficient to compensate the defendant?
Would damages be an adequate remedy for D at trial if an injunction shouldn't have been awarded but was?
Where does the balance of convenience lie?
Which course will cause irremediable prejudice, and to what extent? Factors include: (i) The prejudice the parties will suffer if it is granted or not; (ii) The likelihood of that prejudice actually occurring; (iii) The extent to which any prejudice may be compensated for by damages; (iv) The likelihood that either party will be able to satisfy an award; and (v) The likelihood the injunction will be found to be
IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT
Who has the better case on the merits?
What course best maintains the status quo?
If balance of convenience finely balanced, this factor is IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our BPTC Civil Ligitation Notes.