LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Interlocutory Injunction – Preventive Nature and Inapplicability to Past Wrongs

This principle defines the essential nature and temporal scope of interlocutory injunctions as preventive rather than remedial. Interlocutory injunctions operate prospectively to prevent anticipated future violations of rights, not retrospectively to remedy past violations. The rationale is that once a wrong has been committed, the appropriate remedies are damages (compensation for loss) or permanent injunction at trial (preventing repetition). Interlocutory injunctions serve the limited purpose of preserving the status quo pending trial to prevent irreparable harm that might occur before the court can finally determine rights. For an interlocutory injunction to be appropriate, there must be: (1) threatened or continuing violation of rights, not merely a completed violation; (2) inadequacy of damages as remedy—the anticipated injury must be of such nature that money cannot adequately compensate; and (3) need for immediate protection pending trial. If the alleged wrong is entirely in the past with no threat of repetition, interlocutory injunction is inappropriate—the applicant should proceed to trial for final relief. This principle prevents misuse of interlocutory injunctions as tools for obtaining premature final relief or punishing past conduct before rights are determined. It maintains the distinction between temporary protective measures (interlocutory injunctions) and final remedies (damages, permanent injunctions, declarations). Courts must examine whether the applicant seeks protection against future threatened violations (proper use) or remedy for completed past violations (improper use requiring trial for final determination).