Interim injunction 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...

Interim injunction applications are rarely simple. Applicants face numerous procedural and substantive obstacles before a court will even contemplate awarding this discretionary remedy. This Checklist addresses those issues and aims to help practitioners adopt a structured method when replying to—and, where appropriate, opposing—an on‑notice interim injunction application. It should be read alongside the detailed guidance in the following Practice Notes: Interim injunctions—on notice applications Interim injunctions—the American Cyanamid guidelines Interim injunctions—drafting the order For further assistance with without notice applications, see: Opposing a without notice interim injunction application—checklist. 6 April 2025 changes With effect from 6 April 2025, the CPR provisions governing interim injunctive relief were amended. Notably, CPR 25 underwent substantial revision and the related Practice Directions were revoked, including the exemplar draft orders formerly found in Annex A and Annex B to Practice Direction 25A. In addition, three new ‘model orders’ took effect on 6 April 2025. These reforms were not meant to make material changes to the...

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on UK trade mark infringement, offences, passing off, interim injunctions, running IP disputes, privilege, dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration), and the Disclosure Scheme; plus checklists and forms (injunction, application, hearing) Stage 2—Letter before action alleging infringement Notes on infringement, passing off, unjustified threats and drafting; includes a trade mark letter of claim precedent Stage 3—commencing proceedings Procedure, defences and exceptions, IPEC flowchart, pleadings and initial disclosure precedents, and CPR/Part 36 forms Stage 4—case management Procedure and Disclosure Scheme notes, court guides (Chancery, Patents Court, IPEC and Small Claims), and case management questionnaires, Disclosure Review Document, Certificate of Compliance, budgets and directions Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Surveys and witness evidence (PD 57AC), privilege, disclosure (including electronic) and flexible trials; witness statement and Extended Disclosure precedents; affidavits, applications and certificates Stage 6—trial...

On 7 April 2026, Dyson secured an interim injunction against Chinese rival Dreame after the UPC tribunal held that the ‘Dazzle’ hair styler infringed Dyson’s patent, compelling a suspension of sales throughout all UPC Member States and Spain. The Hamburg Local Division explained that including Spain (despite it not being a UPC Member State) was warranted because Dreame’s EU-based importer was actively putting the goods on the Spanish market, thereby creating a sufficiently close jurisdictional connection to hear the claims together under EU jurisdictional rules. The panel, chaired by Sabine Klepsch, declined to stretch the order to the UK. Citing the UK–EU Windsor Framework, under which certain EU product safety requirements still apply in Northern Ireland and oblige non‑EU manufacturers to appoint an EU-based representative to place goods there, Dyson argued this regulatory nexus tied UK sales to the EU and could ground UPC jurisdiction. The judges disagreed, concluding those provisions are principally intended to smooth trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, not to create an adequate legal link...

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Cross-border disputes Injunctions Civil appeals New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments CPR updates 174th Practice Direction update effective 5 November 2024: The Master of the Rolls and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice have authorised the 174th Practice Direction (PD) update to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The changes take effect at 11am on 5 November 2024. This PD update amends CPR PD 51ZE (Small Claims Track Automatic Referral to Mediation Pilot Scheme) and CPR PD 51R (Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) Pilot Scheme), expanding the obligation to engage in integrated mediation in civil matters to money claims submitted via the OCMC service. For more information, see: LNB News 22/10/2024 127—174th Practice Direction update—in force 5 November 2024. Court guidance Damages Claims Pilot under CPR PD 51ZB—updated guidance:...

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC-LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA, alleging that the Second Defendant was assuming strategic decision-making without proper authority—covering directions on renewal of the O&M Agreement, instruction of external...

This Practice Note outlines the options open to landowners faced with unlawful occupation by a trespasser or squatter, the issues that can follow from trespass, and the potential measures the owner may pursue, including physical repossession. It considers the Criminal Law Act 1977 (CLA 1977) and the exception for displaced residential occupiers, the use of police powers to arrest where suitable, the effect of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012) in criminalising residential squatting, injunctions and interim injunctions, and damages, including the negotiating damages approach, mesne profits, exemplary and aggravated damages, anticipated damages, and res judicata defences. The ways a landowner can recover possession from a trespasser include: physical repossession arrest of the trespasser by the police for a criminal offence injunction possession claim (including a claim for an interim possession order) Beyond the remedies available to recover possession, a landowner may also claim damages for the trespass. Such claims may involve negotiating damages,...

This Practice Note This Practice Note examines how standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing feature in patent disputes before the Courts of England and Wales (the English Courts). It focuses, in particular, on the legal position following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling of 26 August 2020 in the combined Unwired Planet and Conversant appeals, and the practical consequences of that decision. For further information, see News Analysis: Supreme Court—English courts can determine terms of global licences for portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet v Huawei). Since then, two further significant rulings on FRAND rates have been issued in England and Wales and have been the subject of appeal judgments, as noted below: First, judgment was handed down on 16 March 2023 in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo following a High Court FRAND trial in January 2022. It offered additional guidance on several of the issues considered in Unwired Planet. The appeal judgment in InterDigital v Lenovo was handed...

Interim ‘springboard’ injunctions This Practice Note examines the character and reach of interim ‘springboard’ injunctions, deployed to stop a transgressor securing an unfair competitive advantage arising from unlawful conduct. It addresses the particular circumstances in which an employer may seek a springboard injunction to curb the actions of a former employee, the evidential requirements that must be met to obtain the order, and the means by which protection is delivered in practice. It also considers how the length and breadth of the injunction can be confined and tailored. On occasion, an employer will pursue an injunction to shield themselves from the conduct of a former employee who, before employment ended, breached a post-termination restriction (restrictive covenant) or misused the employer’s confidential information and, by that misuse, gained an unfair competitive advantage over their former employer. An interim order intended to neutralise any unfair competitive advantage that might be obtained through misuse of an employer’s confidential information, breach of contract, or the commission of a tort, is commonly called...

Introduction A rights of light claim is usually started under CPR 7 by issuing a Claim Form (N1), though in certain circumstances the CPR Part 8 route may be suitable (see Practice Note: CPR Part 8 claims (alternative procedure for claims)). These drafting notes apply only to Form N1. For general guidance, refer to Practice Note: Claim form—the contents. Relevant Precedents Particulars of claim for right of light claim Order for Interim Injunction in right of light proceedings Court details Insert the name of the court in which the proceedings will be brought. The claim may be issued in the County Court or, where the claim’s value justifies it, in the High Court. See Practice Note: Where to start a civil claim. If issuing in the County Court, you may use any County Court hearing centre; however, if you issue at a centre not serving the property, the case may be transferred after issue to the appropriate court, which can...

Filed on behalf of the Defendant Witness statement from [ insert initial and surname of witness ]. Statement number: [ insert number of the witness’s statement in relation to that witness ]. Exhibits referenced: [ insert initials and the number of each exhibit cited ]. Date the statement was signed: [ insert date ]. [ Date of translation: [ insert date ] ]. Claim No. [ insert claim number ]...

Filed on behalf of the Claimant Witness’s statement relating to [ insert initial and surname of witness ] Assigned witness statement number: [ insert the number of this statement in respect of the witness ] Exhibit particulars: [ insert initials and number for each exhibit referred to ] Date statement was finalised below: [ insert date ] [ Date of translation: [ insert date ] ] Claim No...

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...