Injunctions and the Orders That Stop Something Happening

Most court remedies arrive at the end and are paid in money. An injunction arrives early and changes behaviour instead.

Why money is sometimes not enough

Compensation works where the harm can be valued. It works poorly where the damage is to confidentiality, a relationship, a reputation or something that cannot be reconstructed.

The usual threshold question is therefore whether damages would be an adequate remedy. If they would, an injunction is generally refused.

This is why injunctions cluster in disputes about confidential information, restrictive covenants and the imminent destruction or disposal of assets. In each, waiting for trial defeats the purpose.

Interim orders decide risk, not merits

An order made before trial cannot rest on a finding of who is right, because no trial has happened. Courts instead ask which course carries the lower risk of irreparable injustice.

That assessment usually requires a serious question to be tried, then weighs the harm to each side from granting or refusing. It is a management decision under uncertainty.

Applicants are commonly required to give an undertaking to compensate the other side if the order turns out to have been wrongly granted. That undertaking is the price of interim protection.

Urgency and hearing one side only

Where notice would allow the very act complained of, some applications are heard without the other party present. These carry heightened duties on the applicant.

The applicant is generally required to disclose material facts including those unhelpful to their case. Breach of that duty can result in the order being discharged regardless of the underlying merits.

Mandatory orders are harder to obtain

An order requiring positive action is treated more cautiously than one prohibiting conduct. Compelling someone to do something before trial risks a greater injustice if the claim later fails.

Courts are also reluctant to make orders requiring continuous supervision. Enforcing an ongoing obligation is impractical for a court to manage.

Breach and enforcement

Disobeying an injunction is treated as contempt of the court rather than as a breach of the other party's rights. Consequences can include fines, seizure of assets and imprisonment.

Because these applications move fast, carry personal consequences and are governed by rules that differ substantially between systems, anyone facing or contemplating one should instruct a lawyer immediately rather than acting alone.