(redirected from interlocutory injunction)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.


a court order issued to a person or company requiring them to desist from behaving in ways which are harmful to other people. See CONTRACT, TORT.


A court order requiring a party to do something,or to stop doing something,until further notice.If the party fails to perform according to the injunction, then the party will be required to appear in court, defend his or her actions, and show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt of court.If held in contempt,the party may be ordered to pay a fine,may be jailed until the contempt is cured,or could suffer both consequences.

Injunctions come in three varieties:

1. Temporary restraining order (TRO). Usually obtainable with little or no notice to the defendant, sometimes as quickly as within an hour or so if the complaining party can convince a judge that there is immediate risk of irreparable harm if the restraining order is not issued.

2. Preliminary injunction. Usually issued after a TRO, if the judge decides that an injunction should remain in effect until such time as there can be a full trial on the merits of the case. Failure to obtain a TRO does not mean a judge will not issue a preliminary injunc- tion; it simply means the judge did not agree with the plaintiff's evaluation of the neces- sity for urgent action.

3. Final injunction. The final order issued by a court after it has heard all the evidence and legal arguments for and against the injunction. The order is a final order, from which the parties may appeal.

References in periodicals archive ?
7) As a consequence, courts generally assessed the rights underlying an application for an interlocutory injunction as they would have at trial, and therefore essentially adjudicated on the merits.
in American Cyanamid applied the traditional prima facie case test and dismissed the interlocutory injunction ordered by the motions judge.
My Lords, when an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a defendant from doing acts alleged to be in violation of the plaintiff's legal right is made upon contested facts, the decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when ex hypothesi the existence of the right or the violation of it, or both, is uncertain and will remain uncertain until final judgment is given in the action.
Hence, because at the stage of an interlocutory injunction the evidence was incomplete and untested by cross-examination (15) and because an interlocutory injunction was merely a means of mitigating the risk of injustice pending trial, Lord Diplock dismissed the prima facie case test as leading to "confusion as to the object sought to be achieved by this form of temporary relief.
Once an applicant for an interlocutory injunction has met the threshold test by showing that the rights he is asserting have a reasonable prospect of being recognized at trial or that there is a serious question to be tried, the court is bound to move on and consider (1) whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is refused and (2) against whom the balance of inconvenience lies.
American Cyanamid is said to have provoked "some indignation at the apparent loss of a quick, relatively cheap means of settling cases by decision on an application for an interlocutory injunction, and considerable doubt as to the suitability of the principles set out by Lord Diplock in Cyanamid for use in all types of interlocutory action.
was presented with an application for an interlocutory injunction requesting the enforcement of a covenant in restraint of trade.
The applicants brought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the picketing.
He reasoned that "the court should assess the relative strength of each party's case before deciding whether to grant an injunction" since granting the interlocutory injunction would "virtually decide the whole action in favour of the plaintiffs: because the defendants will be restrained until the trial (which may mean two years, or more) from picketing the plaintiffs' premises, by which time the campaign will be over.
was there faced with an application by a company for an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from taking winding-up proceedings against it.
Woods, (46) the House of Lords was faced with a motion for an interlocutory injunction ordering the respondents to cease a particular industrial action.
Lord Diplock, after repeating the thrust of the reasons for his approach in American Cyanamid, enunciated a set of guiding principles for a court faced with the type of interlocutory injunction that would effectively bring an end to the action: