Injunctive relief meaning

This Checklist is intended to help practitioners adopt a structured method for resisting a without‑notice application for an interim injunction. It should be read in conjunction with the detailed guidance contained in the following Practice Notes: Interim injunctions—without notice applications Interim injunctions—the American Cyanamid guidelines Interim injunctions—drafting the order Although this Checklist concentrates on without‑notice applications, there is inevitably some cross‑over with matters that arise on on‑notice applications. Practitioners should therefore also familiarise themselves with the detailed guidance contained in: Opposing an on notice interim injunction application—checklist as well. 6 April 2025 changes With effect from 6 April 2025, the CPR provisions governing interim injunctive relief were amended. In particular, CPR 25 underwent extensive revision, and the related Practice Directions were revoked. This revocation covered the example draft orders found in Annex A and Annex B to Practice Direction 25A. In addition, three new ‘model orders’ came into force on 6 April 2025. The reforms were not intended to...

This checklist sets out the principal points applicants ought to weigh up when seeking an imaging order. It highlights the considerations to bear in mind when preparing and submitting any application. It should be read alongside the following Practice Notes: Search and imaging orders—guiding principles Search and imaging orders—making an application The model search and imaging order Search and imaging orders—execution of the order and next steps For guidance on dealing with an application for an imaging order, see: Responding to an imaging order—checklist. 6 April 2025 changes With effect from 6 April 2025, the CPR provisions governing interim injunctive relief, including search and imaging orders, were updated. In particular, CPR 25 underwent substantial revision and the related Practice Directions—covering the standard draft search order and the imaging order form (previously in Annex A and Annex B to Practice Direction 25A)—were withdrawn. In their place, a new model search and imaging order took effect on 6 April 2025 (the...

Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition claims are predominantly governed by national law, and procedural as well as substantive rules differ markedly across the EU; accordingly, when planning competition litigation, assessments will need to be made for each individual jurisdiction. Possible causes of action Assess whether UK competition law has been breached (or EU competition law where the period predates the end of the Brexit transition period). Determine if the loss arises from an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings, particularly between competitors (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). Evaluate whether an undertaking that is arguably dominant—typically indicated by a substantial share of a relevant market—caused the loss through abusive conduct contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if before the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). Consider whether other national or foreign competition laws have...

In this issue: Employment Rights Act 2025 Benefits Protected characteristics Confidentiality, duties and restrictions: enforcement Europe-EU New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Employment resources on Lexis+® LexTalk®Employment: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Employment Rights Act 2025 Welsh Government consults on establishment of a Social Care Negotiating Body The Welsh Government has opened a consultation on creating a Social Care Negotiating Body (SCNB) using powers in the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025). The SCNB would be responsible for setting Fair Pay Agreements for Wales’s social care workforce. Feedback is invited on the organisation’s design, role and anticipated effects. Responses will inform the government’s understanding of sector perspectives on the SCNB, including the bargaining approach, who and what it should cover, dispute resolution, roll-out, as well as compliance and enforcement. The consultation closes on 28 April 2026. The exercise does not invite comments on the specifics...

Andrew Scott KC of Blackstone Chambers, counsel for BHP Andrew Scott KC said the planned appeal poses the issue of whether seeking anti‑suit relief in a foreign court, linked to proceedings in England, could amount to criminal contempt. Scott told the Court of Appeal that no English authority indicates that it could. BHP has lodged an appeal against a decision by Judge Adam Constable. In June 2025, sitting in the High Court, he held that BHP must confront allegations that it attempted to impede the municipalities’ access to justice in England by supporting proceedings in Brazil’s highest court that might frustrate compensation claims. The municipalities argue that BHP is in contempt of court for agreeing to finance a claim initiated by Ibram, a Brazilian mining association, before the South American country’s Federal Supreme Court in 2024...

In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology General IP LexTalk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Injunction granted against Craig Wright (Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright; Wright v BTC Core) In High Court proceedings brought by Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) against Craig Steven Wright, the court found squarely and decisively against Dr Wright’s assertions that he created Bitcoin as ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’. On the final day of the hearing earlier this year, Mr Justice Mellor stated the evidence was overwhelming and unequivocal: Dr Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin White Paper, did not act under the name Satoshi Nakamoto between 2008 and 2011, did not devise the Bitcoin system, and did not write the early iterations of the Bitcoin software at all. The recently issued...

Note: Brazil judgments below are not reported by LexisNexis®. What constitutes a foreign arbitral award in Brazil? The Brazilian Arbitration Act (Federal Law No. 9,307/96, (BAA)) identifies two categories of arbitral awards: domestic and foreign. Foreign awards are those issued outside Brazil (BAA, art 34, para 1) and must undergo recognition before they can be enforced locally. Domestic awards are those delivered within Brazil and are enforceable as a domestic judgment without any need for court confirmation. Accordingly, for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards, the arbitral seat is pivotal in determining where the award is rendered and whether prior confirmation is required in Brazil. How to enforce a foreign arbitral award in Brazil To enforce a foreign arbitral award in Brazil, it must first be submitted for recognition before the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça, (STJ)). The governing rules and conditions for recognition are set out in articles 963 and 964 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (BCCP), articles...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

Exclusivity letter—private M&A—share purchase Strictly private and confidential To: [ Insert potential seller name ] [ Insert potential seller address ] FAO: [ Insert name of relevant contact at the potential seller ] Date: [ insert date ] Dear [ Insert name of relevant contact at the potential seller ], Proposed acquisition of the entire issued share capital of [ insert target company name ] Limited (the Company) from [ insert seller name ] (the Seller) 1 Introduction Further to our recent conversations regarding the proposed purchase by [ insert buyer name ] (or another member of its group of companies) (the Buyer) of [ the entire issued share capital OR [ insert other description of number of shares being sold ] ] of the Company (the Sale Shares) from the Seller (the Proposed Acquisition). Each of the Seller and the Buyer is a party and, together, they are the parties...

Claim No.: HQ [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST Parties: (1) [ Insert full name of claimant/first claimant ] (2) [ [ Insert full name of second claimant ] ] [ Claimant OR Claimants ] and [ Insert full name of defendant ] Defendant DEFENCE The Defendant admits paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim. It is asserted that [ add facts and matters about the claimant(s) relevant to defence ] Paragraphs 2 and 3 are accepted. The Defendant accepts having published an article called '[ insert title of article or heading or description of publication ]' on [ insert date ] at [ insert URL of website in cases of publication online ], which contained the words complained of as identified at paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim (the Article). As alleged at paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim, it is further...

Strictly private and confidential To: [ insert buyer name ] [ insert buyer address ] Date: [ insert date ] Dear [ insert buyer contact name ], Confidentiality Undertaking Proposed acquisition of [ insert target company name ] Limited 1 Introduction 1.1 Further to our recent discussions about the intended sale by [ insert names of each individual seller ] (Sellers) of [ the entire issued share capital OR [ insert other description of number of shares being sold ] ] of [ insert target company name ] Limited (the Company) (Sale Shares) to [ insert buyer name ] (or an entity within its group of companies) (the Buyer) (the Proposed Acquisition). Each of the Sellers and the Buyer constitutes a party and, collectively, they are the parties...

No particular claim form applies to proceedings that include a request for final injunctive relief. The standard factors for selecting the suitable claim form, as described in CPR 8.1, still apply. The principal question is usually whether the court will need to resolve a material factual dispute in order to determine the claim. While the Part 8 route may look simpler, opting for it can be tempting but, in practice, often results in increased costs and delay where the Part 7 procedure is more appropriate...