Someone is about to do something that will damage you, and money after the event will not put it right. A former employee is approaching your clients with your price list. A neighbour's contractor is cutting into your boundary wall. A competitor is selling goods under your brand. An injunction is a court order to stop — or, less often, to do something. If the case is urgent enough, the court can make one within hours, sometimes before the other side has been told. In return it will want evidence, candour about the weak points in your case, and your promise to compensate the other side if the order turns out to have been wrong.
The kinds of injunction
| Type | What it does | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibitory | Orders someone not to do something | Not to use your confidential client list |
| Mandatory | Orders someone to take a positive step | Return documents, take down a post, remove an encroachment |
| Interim | Holds the position until trial or a further order | Not to contact named clients until trial |
| Final | Granted at trial, as part of the judgment | A permanent order not to use your trade mark |
| Quia timet | Stops a wrong that is threatened but has not yet happened | Works that will undermine your wall, about to start |
A quia timet injunction depends on showing that the other side has threatened to invade your rights, and that the risk is — in a phrase the Supreme Court cited in Wolverhampton City Council v London Gypsies and Travellers [2023] UKSC 47 — "sufficiently real and imminent".
Where the power comes from
Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981:
"The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so."
The County Court has the same reach. Under section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984 it may make any order the High Court could, subject to exceptions; the one that matters here is the search order. "Just and convenient" makes the remedy discretionary: even at trial, the court can award damages instead of an injunction (section 50 of the 1981 Act).
The test for an interim injunction
On an interim application the court applies the guidelines from American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, which the Court of Appeal set out as four questions in AstraZeneca AB v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 480.
- 1
Is there a serious question to be tried?
In current terms, does the claim have a real prospect of success? If not, no injunction. The merits themselves are left for trial.
- 2
Would damages be enough for you?
If money at trial would compensate you for the loss until then, and the other side could pay, an injunction is normally refused.
- 3
Would your undertaking protect them?
If not, could damages under your cross-undertaking compensate the other side if they win, and could you pay? If so, an injunction is normally granted.
- 4
Where does the balance of convenience lie?
If doubt remains, the court weighs all the circumstances. Where other factors are evenly balanced, it is prudent to preserve the status quo.
Behind all four sits one principle, in Lord Hoffmann's words: the court "should take whichever course seems likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to one party or the other" (National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corp Ltd [2009] UKPC 16).
Three kinds of case are treated differently:
- Mandatory orders. An order to take a positive step can do more harm if wrongly made than an order simply holding things as they are. The court may ask whether it feels a "high degree of assurance" that you will establish your right at trial (HXZ v NMX [2025] EWHC 916 (KB), applying earlier authority). Even without it, an order can still be made where refusing it carries the greater risk of injustice.
- Speech. Where relief might affect freedom of expression, section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 says no order is to restrain publication before trial "unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed". "Likely" generally means more likely than not, save in exceptional cases (Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253).
- Defamation. Interim injunctions to restrain alleged libel face a higher bar still. The American Cyanamid principles do not apply (Ferreira-Malosso v Nowakowska [2024] EWHC 2696 (KB)). Under the long-standing rule in Bonnard v Perryman, the court will refuse interim relief if the publisher credibly says the publication can be defended — for example, as true. Relabelling the claim as harassment does not avoid the rule if protecting reputation is really its purpose.
What is the injunction mainly for?
The rule in Bonnard v Perryman. No interim injunction if the publisher credibly asserts a defence, such as truth.
Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. You must show you are likely, usually more likely than not, to win at trial.
The American Cyanamid questions, with extra caution if the order would require positive steps.
The cross-undertaking in damages
Unless the court orders otherwise, an interim injunction must contain "an undertaking by the applicant to the court to pay any damages which the respondent sustains and which the court considers the applicant should pay" (CPR 25.9(3)(a)). The court must also consider whether to require an undertaking for losses suffered by other people affected by the order (rule 25.9(5)).
Applying without notice
The normal course is to serve the application notice, evidence and a draft order at least three days before the hearing (rule 25.6(2)). The court can instead act without notice "if it appears to the court that there are good reasons for not giving notice", and your evidence must say what those reasons are (rule 25.3).
The usual reasons are genuine urgency, or that a warning would defeat the purpose because assets or evidence would disappear. Even then, rule 25.8 requires you to take steps to notify the other side of the application, unless you reasonably believe secrecy is essential. Where the order could affect freedom of expression, section 12(2) of the 1998 Act adds that relief is not to be granted against an absent respondent unless all practicable steps have been taken to notify them, or there are compelling reasons not to.
Without notice, you owe the court a duty of full and frank disclosure. You must disclose the facts that are material for the court to know, and present them fairly, drawing attention to the points the absent party would make. That includes facts you would have found on reasonable enquiry (Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350; Tugushev v Orlov (No 2) [2019] EWHC 2031 (Comm)). As the principles collected in Marinakis v Karipidis [2025] EWHC 13 (KB) put it, non-disclosure of material facts may lead to the order being set aside without examination of the merits.
Before the hearing
Prepare the evidence
A witness statement setting out all relevant facts, including the points against you.
At least two hours before, where possible
File the papers
The application notice, evidence and a draft order.
At the hearing
The judge hears you alone
If granted, the order records your undertakings, including the cross-undertaking.
As soon as practicable afterwards
Serve the order
With the application, evidence and a note of the hearing.
The return date
Both sides are heard
The court decides whether the order continues, is varied or is discharged.
Urgency and out-of-hours applications
An interim remedy can be granted before a claim is issued "only if the matter is urgent, or it is otherwise desirable to do so in the interests of justice" (rule 25.2(2)). You will then have to undertake to issue the claim form immediately, unless the court gives directions instead (rule 25.8(2)). Hearings can take place remotely (rule 25.8(3)).
According to the King's Bench Guide 2025, a High Court judge is available every day the court sits, in and out of hours, to deal with interim applications. Out-of-hours applications are only for real emergencies, and in that Division only lawyers can make them. You must explain why the application was not made earlier and why it cannot wait until the next sitting day, and the Guide notes that the duty of full and frank disclosure "assumes added significance". Delay works against you: a court asked to act at once will want to know why you did not come sooner.
Freezing injunctions and search orders
A freezing injunction stops a party removing assets from the jurisdiction or dealing with them, and it can reach assets abroad (rule 25.1(1)(f)). As the Court of Appeal recorded in dos Santos v Unitel [2024] EWCA Civ 1109, the applicant must show:
- a good arguable case on the merits;
- a real risk, judged objectively, that a judgment would go unmet because of unjustified dissipation of assets; and
- that the order is just and convenient.
The evidence must be on affidavit, and the order must follow the court's model wording (rules 25.13 and 25.14). The model order lets the respondent spend a set weekly sum on living expenses and a sum on legal advice, and deal with assets in the ordinary and proper course of business. It also requires them to tell the applicant's lawyers what assets they have.
A search order requires a party to let the applicant's team enter premises to search for and preserve evidence (section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997). It is supervised by an independent, experienced Supervising Solicitor, who normally serves it personally (rules 25.16 and 25.19). The rules also provide for an imaging order, giving an independent IT expert access to copy devices and online accounts (rule 25.1(1)(i)).
Both orders are made by High Court judges. A freezing injunction can also be granted in the County Court by a Circuit Judge specially authorised for the purpose (Practice Direction 2B, paragraph 8.4). Search orders, with narrow exceptions, stay in the High Court (County Court Remedies Regulations 2014, regulation 3).
The rules themselves. All of this sits in Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which was replaced in full on 6 April 2025 by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025. Practice Directions 25A and 25B no longer exist. Much of what they said is now in the rules, and the court has published new model orders for freezing injunctions and for search and imaging orders. Guidance that cites the old practice directions is out of date.
Breaking an injunction
An order is normally endorsed with a penal notice — a prominent warning that disobeying it may lead to imprisonment, a fine or the seizure of assets (CPR 81.2). Breach is enforced by a contempt application under Part 81. The court can find contempt only if it is sure — satisfied beyond reasonable doubt — and it may then impose imprisonment, a fine or confiscation of assets (rule 81.9). Committal is for a fixed term of up to two years (Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 14). Under the model freezing order, anyone notified of the order who knowingly assists in or permits a breach is in contempt too.
A harassment injunction carries an extra sanction. Breaching it without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence, punishable on indictment by up to five years' imprisonment, and the court can issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest (Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 3).
If you are the one served with an order, obey it while you deal with it. A without-notice order comes with a return date, and the model freezing order allows anyone served with or notified of it to apply to vary or discharge it at any time.
What it costs
- £321
- court fee for an application on notice
- £126
- court fee for an application without notice
- 14 days
- to pay costs the court assesses at a short hearing
The court fees are modest. On top of the application fee, issuing a claim for an injunction costs £663 in the High Court or £387 in the County Court, more if you also claim damages (HMCTS fees, July 2026). The real cost is the evidence, which must be complete and fair at speed, and advocacy at short notice. The general rule is that the losing party pays the winner's costs (rule 44.2). At the end of a hearing lasting a day or less the court will usually assess costs on the spot, payable within 14 days, though it can also reserve them or make them "costs in the case". Add the exposure under your cross-undertaking and, under the model freezing order, the reasonable costs third parties such as banks incur because of it.
Common situations
| Situation | What an injunction can do | What to know |
|---|---|---|
| An ex-employee taking clients or confidential information | Stop use or disclosure of confidential information, enforce restrictions in the contract, and require return of documents and devices | A restriction is enforceable only if it protects a legitimate business interest and goes no further than reasonably necessary (Tillman v Egon Zehnder [2019] UKSC 32). |
| Infringement of a trade mark, design or copyright | Stop sales or use until trial | Whether damages would be adequate is often the battleground. Delay weakens the claim to urgency. |
| Building works at or over a boundary | Stop works that trespass or cause a nuisance, and, at trial, require removal | The court can award damages instead of an injunction. |
| Harassment | Stop a course of conduct that alarms or distresses you | Only individuals can be victims. Conduct on at least two occasions is needed (section 7). |
| Damaging posts about you or your business | Stop publication of private, confidential or defamatory material | In defamation, interim orders are rare. A company must show serious financial loss for a statement to be defamatory (Defamation Act 2013, section 1). |
What to do now
- Preserve the evidence: dated screenshots, emails, documents and the names of witnesses.
- Note when you first found out. The court will measure your urgency from then.
- If assets or evidence may vanish once the other side is warned, take advice before you send any letter.
- Estimate what a wrongly granted order would cost the other side: that is what you are promising to cover.
When to speak to a solicitor
As soon as you think you may need an order. Urgency is judged from when you knew, and the evidence takes time to prepare properly. Our civil and commercial litigation team handles interim injunctions, freezing orders and search orders. Brand and copyright cases are covered under IP infringement, and damaging publications under defamation. If it cannot wait, contact us directly.
This guide is general information about the law of England and Wales, not advice on your situation.
