"I would say that the amount of time I take to draft a good, comprehensive submission has been cut down by at least 60 to 70%. Having all these sources, commentary and journals at my fingertips is brilliant."
ParrisWhittaker
Access all documents on Injunction
A discretionary remedy whereby the court orders a defendant to do (mandatory injunction), or refrain from doing (prohibitory injunction) something.
It is an equitable remedy, and is available both as an interim remedy pending the final disposal of an action, and as a final remedy.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
What to think about before bringing a private competition action—checklist Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition actions remain largely regulated by national law and procedural and substantive rules across the EU may vary significantly, therefore assessments in individual jurisdictions will need to be made when planning competition litigation. Possible causes of action • Consider if there is an infringement of UK competition law (or EU competition law prior to the end of the Brexit transition period). ◦ Consider whether the loss suffered can be attributed to an agreement or concerted action between undertakings, especially competing undertakings (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). ◦ Consider whether the loss might have been caused by an entity that is arguably dominant typically with a large share of a relevant market, and could be said to have abused its dominance contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if prior to the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance)....
Issues in cryptoasset related civil claims—checklist This Checklist on cryptoassets considers issues for dispute resolution lawyers to consider when dealing with claims involving cryptoassets. It considers the key procedural issues involved in pursuing a civil claim where cryptoassets (usually their recovery) are in some way involved. The particular intangible and international nature of cryptocurrencies, which allows parties to exploit the asset and move it around the globe into less favourable jurisdictions, has made them ripe for misappropriation and theft and, to date, the caselaw in this area has almost exclusively been concerned with the recovery of stolen cryptocurrencies. Such decisions have thus far been at an interlocutory level only, however, the English courts have demonstrated a willingness to show flexibility in approach and to utilise the full panoply of procedures and rules at its disposal to facilitate effective attempts at civil recovery. One of your first tasks, whatever the factual scenario involved in a civil claim, is to identify the parties involved (which can be a particularly difficult exercise), the...
Discover our 4 Checklists on Injunction
This Practice Note considers anti-suit injunctions which are a form of injunctive relief used to restrain a party from either commencing or continuing court proceedings. It explains what an anti-suit injunction is and the power of the courts to grant such an injunction. It then explores the basis on which an anti-suit injunction may be refused or granted. It considers the effect of a breach of an anti-suit injunction as well as the impact of foreign anti-suit injunctions on proceedings in the courts of England and Wales. Single forum anti-suit injunctions are also explained.For guidance on:•making an application for an anti-suit injunction, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions—making an application•anti-suit injunctions and the EU, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions and EU court proceedings•anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration, see Practice Note: Anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration (England and Wales)Different considerations apply when dealing with the following:•an anti-enforcement injunction to restrain a judgment creditor from taking proceedings to enforce a judgment. For guidance, see Practice Note: Anti-enforcement injunctions•an anti-suit injunction where...
Employment claims in Scottish civil courts Scottish civil courts, like their counterparts in England and Wales, can and do decide certain employment disputes. However, there are very significant differences between the civil court systems in Scotland and in England and Wales which practitioners need to be aware of. This Practice Note provides an overview of: • the most common orders sought by employment lawyers in Scottish civil courts • the structure of the Scottish civil court system • the jurisdiction and key features of each relevant court • rights of audience • rules of procedure • important points about: ◦ breach of contract claims in Scotland ◦ injunctive (interlocutory) relief in Scotland ◦ dawn raids in Scotland ◦ industrial relations disputes in Scotland ◦ equality of terms claims in Scotland The purpose of this Practice Note is to provide an introduction to the key features of the Scottish civil court system for employment lawyers. It is not intended to and does not purport to be a comprehensive account of...
Discover our 102 Practice Notes on Injunction
Letter of claim—peer-to-peer copyright infringement Letter of claim [Alleged infringer’s name and address] [Date] Dear [insert organisation name] Copyright infringement: [Name and description of copyright works] We are writing on behalf of [name and address of client] (‘our client’). We are writing to you about your activities and actions, which amount to an infringement of our client’s copyright. [Name of client] Our client operates in [describe: eg the computer games industry; what the copyright owner does; who in the company produces the copyright works, if relevant, how they are employed and what the copyright work is. Define or give the name of the copyright work]. Our client is the [owner OR owner-assignee OR non-exclusive licensee OR exclusive licensee] of copyright in the copyright work, a copy of which is available for inspection at our offices on request. [In accordance with section 11(2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), our client owns the copyright subsisting in the copyright work because it is...
Irrevocable undertaking—shareholder—scheme of arrangement The Directors [insert offeror's name] ([Offeror]) [insert address] [and] [The Directors] [[insert name of financial adviser] (the Adviser) [insert address]] [insert date] Dear Directors Proposed acquisition of [name of offeree] ([Offeree]) We understand that [Offeror] proposes to acquire (the Acquisition) [all] the issued [and to be issued] [ordinary] shares of [insert nominal value] each in [Offeree] (the Shares) for the consideration, and otherwise substantially on the terms and subject to the conditions, set out in the draft press announcement attached to this letter (the Announcement), subject to such amendments or additions to such terms and conditions as may be required by the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code), the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (the Panel), the High Court of Justice in England and Wales (the Court) or any applicable law or regulation. We also understand that the Acquisition is expected to be implemented by way of a scheme of arrangement under...
Dive into our 57 Precedents related to Injunction
In proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996, the applicant has produced as part of their evidence a recording of the respondent made without the respondent’s knowledge. The respondent believes that the applicant has made further covert recordings which have not been disclosed. Is there case law to support that the applicant or their solicitors should disclose copies of all covert recordings made? The law relating to the recording of conversations between private individuals and the use of those recordings in court proceedings is a developing area. As a matter of first principles, there is no offence committed where an individual covertly records a conversation with another individual. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) applies to public bodies but not to individuals. Likewise, the Telecommunications(Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2699 apply to businesses in respect of the recording of conversations without notice to the person being recorded or in certain specified exceptional circumstances. In Jones v University of Warwick, an enquiry agent...
What are the provisions that govern whether evidence consisting of covertly made recordings may be admissible within private law proceedings under the Children Act 1989? The law relating to the recording of conversations between private individuals and the use of those recordings in court proceedings is a developing area. As a matter of first principles, there is no offence committed where an individual covertly records a conversation with another individual. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000) applies to public bodies but not to individuals. Likewise, the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/2699 apply to businesses in respect of the recording of conversations without notice to the person being recorded or in certain specified exceptional circumstances. Recordings may also be breach of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR). In M v F (Covert Recordings of children) , Peter Jackson J (as he then was) commented that the exemption within the legislation applying to normal domestic use...
See the 4 Q&As about Injunction
This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 11th edition of the King’s Bench Guide and the Court of Appeal decision in Freeman v Home Farm Ellingham Ltd (specific performance); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.
This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: analysis of a Court of Appeal decision on the binding nature of boundary agreements, the progress of the Renters’ Rights Bill, analysis on the impact of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 on the property industry, and High Court decisions on enforcing a loan agreement via the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the proportionality of seeking possession against a disabled tenant, and an application for a proprietary injunction. It also includes publication of the 11th Edition of the King’s Bench Guide.
Read the latest 36 News articles on Injunction
**Trials are provided to all ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234