Interim injunction

A temporary court order stopping someone doing something, or requiring them to do something, before the full case is heard — used where waiting for trial would itself cause harm that cannot later be undone.

Is an interim injunction a final decision?

No. It is a temporary order, usually made before the full facts have been tested at trial, to hold the position until the case can be properly heard. It can be varied or discharged later, and the final trial may reach a different conclusion once all the evidence has been examined.

What is a cross-undertaking in damages?

It is a promise, usually required before the court will grant an interim injunction, that the person asking for the order will compensate the other side for any loss the order causes if it later turns out the injunction should not have been granted. Courts generally will not grant an interim injunction without one, because it protects the other side if the claimant's case ultimately fails.

How quickly can an interim injunction be obtained?

Where there is genuine urgency, it can be sought within days or even hours, including without notice to the other side in the most pressing cases. The court will usually require the matter to come back for a full hearing with both sides present shortly afterwards, precisely because without-notice orders are made on one side's evidence only.

What happens if someone breaches an interim injunction?

Breaching an injunction can amount to contempt of court, which can lead to a fine, seizure of assets, or in serious cases imprisonment. This is one reason courts are cautious about granting injunctions in the first place, and why clear, precise wording of what is and is not prohibited matters so much.

Can I get an interim injunction in the small claims track?

Injunctions are not routinely sought in small claims track cases, which mostly concern money claims where an injunction is not the relevant remedy. Where an injunction is genuinely needed, the claim is more likely to be allocated to the fast or multi-track instead, because of the nature of the relief sought rather than the amount claimed.

The three-stage test the court applies

The modern approach to interim injunctions comes from the House of Lords' decision in American Cyanamid v Ethicon. The court asks three questions in turn. First, is there a serious question to be tried — meaning the claim is not obviously hopeless, without the court having to resolve the full merits at this early stage. Second, would damages be an adequate remedy if the claimant won at trial but no injunction were granted now — if money alone could put things right later, an injunction is less likely to be needed. Third, where does the balance of convenience lie — which side would suffer the greater harm from the order being granted, or refused, pending the full trial.

Where the balance of convenience is genuinely finely balanced, the court's starting point is generally to preserve the status quo — the situation as it stood before whatever triggered the application — rather than to let either side change the position unilaterally while the real dispute is still unresolved.

What an interim injunction costs, and who pays

Applying for an interim injunction is not a free step, even where the underlying claim itself might otherwise sit comfortably within the small claims track's fixed and capped costs regime. CPR rule 27.14 specifically carves out a capped allowance for the legal costs of applying for an injunction (or an order for specific performance) on the small claims track, alongside the other named exceptions such as court fees and witness expenses — rather than leaving the applicant to bear the whole cost themselves regardless of outcome. Check the current capped figure in the Part 27 practice direction on gov.uk before relying on it, since it is reviewed from time to time.

The cross-undertaking in damages described below is a separate financial exposure again — it is not a court fee or a legal cost, but a real risk that the person who obtained the order may end up paying the other side's losses if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. Anyone considering an interim injunction needs to weigh that risk carefully, not just the immediate cost of making the application.

Without-notice applications and the need to come back promptly

A former employee has taken a client list and started contacting customers of their old employer, in apparent breach of a restrictive covenant in their contract. The employer applies for an interim injunction to stop further contact with those customers pending a full trial of whether the covenant is enforceable and has been breached.

Serious question to be tried?

Yes — arguable breach of covenant

Would damages alone be adequate?

Unlikely — lost customer relationships are hard to value or reverse

Balance of convenience

Favours the employer pending trial

Interim injunction granted, subject to cross-undertaking

The order does not decide whether the covenant is ultimately enforceable — that is for the full trial. It simply holds the position so that, if the employer is right, the damage is not already done and irreversible by the time the case is finally heard.

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1

Civil Procedure Rules, Part 25

Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37

Interim Injunction — Small Claims Glossary

What an interim injunction is, the American Cyanamid test the court applies, and what happens on a without-notice application.