(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 ?
Compare RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS [section] 936(1) (1979), with RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS [section] 936(2) (1979) (propriety of granting an interlocutory injunction against a tort is determined in light of all the primary factors that are relevant in determining the propriety of granting a permanent injunction against a tort, as well as in light of several special factors).
It may be argued that the lack of controversy is due to the temporary nature of an interlocutory injunction.
See Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [1984] 2 All ER 408: limited injunction restraining the publication of information concerning breaches of racing rules obtained in breach of confidence to only police and jockey club, not to general public, notwithstanding that the defendants were prepared to justify the information; Cream Holdings Lid v Banarjee [2005] 1 AC 253: on the higher threshold for the grant of interlocutory injunctions in the context of HRA s 12(3).
The application for interlocutory injunction was decided on 27 March 2002 by Justice Robert Hutchison of the British Columbia Supreme Court.
First, the test assumes that the hearing on an application for an interlocutory injunction is conducted upon incomplete and disputed evidence.
Ampitan argued that when itbwas discovered that the defendants were feet dragging on the suit, a motion for an interlocutory injunction was filed to restrain all actions in respect of yhestool pe ding the final determination of the suit, saying the motion was granted by the presiding judge.