LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Interlocutory Injunction – Principles for Grant and Exercise of Judicial Discretion
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In applications for interlocutory injunction, the applicant must satisfy the court that there is a serious question to be tried and that facts disclose a reasonable probability of entitlement to relief. The remedy is discretionary and not granted as a matter of course; the court must consider the whole case including the strength of both the claim and the defence.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"There is no doubt that in an application for an interlocutory injunction, an applicant should inter alia satisfy the court that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing of the suit and that the facts disclose a reasonable probability that the applicant will be entitled to the relief sought. The remedy is clearly a discretionary one and is not granted as a matter of course... In the exercise of its discretion the court must look at the whole case. It must have regard not only to the strength of the claim but also to the strength of the defense and then decide what is best to be done in the circumstance."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle establishes the comprehensive framework for evaluating interlocutory injunction applications. The applicant must meet threshold requirements: First, “serious question to be tried” means the claim must not be frivolous or vexatious but must raise substantial legal or factual issues requiring full trial determination. This is not a high bar—it doesn’t require showing a strong likelihood of success, only that the claim is arguable and warrants trial. Second, “reasonable probability of entitlement to relief” requires some evidence suggesting the applicant may succeed at trial—not proof of entitlement, but credible basis for believing relief might be granted. Beyond these threshold requirements, the court exercises discretion by conducting a holistic evaluation of the entire case. This includes examining: (1) the relative strength of the applicant’s claim—how convincing is the prima facie case?; (2) the strength of the defendant’s defence—are there serious challenges to the claim?; (3) balance of convenience—who suffers greater harm if injunction is granted/refused?; (4) adequacy of damages as alternative remedy; (5) preservation of status quo; and (6) overall interests of justice. The discretionary nature means no automatic entitlement—even meeting threshold requirements doesn’t guarantee an injunction. Courts must weigh competing interests and determine what best serves justice pending trial. The principle prevents mechanical application of tests and requires nuanced evaluation recognizing that interlocutory injunctions grant significant relief before rights are finally determined, justifying careful scrutiny of both sides’ positions.