#4698 - Interim Injunction - BPC Civil Litigation

INTERIM INJUNCTION Any party to the proceedings can apply for an interim injunction, whether or not a claim for an injunction was included in that party's originating process or statement of case Order expressed to continue in force for a limited period (usually a few days) sufficient for the application to be renewed on a hearing with notice being given to the respondent. * Can apply in claims allocated to small-claims track Principles: * Must be just and convenient * Discretionary remedy * High Court/County Court may grant if appears to be "just and convenient to do so" * Test: Whether granting relief is just and proportionate * Must be based on/arise from a substantive cause of action * application for injunction is not an action in itself * though, main claim not required to include claim for an injunction * American Cyanamid Guidelines American Cyanamid Guidelines 4 Factors: 1. Serious issue to be tried in Claimant's claim 2. Damages an adequate remedy for Claimant 3. Is Claimant willing and able to provide an undertaking in Damages? Will this afford adequate protection to Defendant? 4. Should the Court exercise its Discretion? Balance of Convenience * Extent damages adequate remedy to each party & ability of each party to pay * Preservation of status quo * Special Factors * Exceptionally - merits of claim Q1: Is there a Serious Issue to be Tried in Claimant's claim? Court satisfied serious issue to be tried on merits: Claimant's cause of action must have substance and reality * not if claim is "hopeless" Q2: Would Damages be an adequate remedy for Claimant? If damages will be an adequate remedy to Claimant - no injunction Consider: * Defendant likely to be able to pay damages? * Wrong irreparable? (eg. loss of a right) * Damage non-pecuniary? * Available market for object which is substance of injunction? (ie. is it replaceable with money) * Damages difficult to assess * eg loss of goodwill, disruption to business * Liquidated damages in contract less than actual likely loss. Q3: Is Claimant willing and able to give undertaking in Damages? Will this afford adequate protection to Defendant? Claimant is required to give an undertaking in damages * Aim: protect Defendant from any loss/harm caused by Injunction, if later turns out it was wrongly granted. * Courts may require "extended undertaking" to protect Third Parties affected by the Injunction Undertaking not required if Crown/Local authority seeking injunction to enforce the law. Q4: Balance of Convenience Q: Will granting/refusing the Injunction cause irremedial prejudice to either party? Consider: * Prejudice to each party by granting or refusing - balance * Likelihood of prejudice actually occurring * Extent can be compensated by damages * Likelihood of either party being able to satisfy award of damages * Likelihood injunction will turn out to have been wrongly granted/refused * Length of time to trial (shorter period - less prejudice) Claimant should draft terms of injunction as narrowly as possible to limit prejudice to Defendant if granted. Maintaining the Status Quo Where other factors appear evenly balanced - consider "status quo" existing immediately prior to issuing claim/application Special Factors Examples: deprivation of employment, damage to business/goodwill, closing down factory, Injunction lead to company being wound up, disruption to Third Parties, Failure by Claimant to respond to letters stating its plans Merits of Claim