Meaning
Guidelines established by the House of Lords govern the exercise of judicial discretion when a litigant applies for an interlocutory injunction before a full trial. These american cyanamid principles dictate that the court must first determine whether there is a serious question to be tried rather than requiring the applicant to establish a prima facie case. The applicant must demonstrate that the claim has real substance and is not frivolous or vexatious.
Legal Threshold
Initial judicial assessment focuses on the strength of the underlying cause of action to prevent the abuse of the injunction procedure. Once a serious question is established, the inquiry shifts to whether damages would provide an adequate remedy if the injunction were refused but the plaintiff succeeded at trial. If damages would compensate the applicant and the respondent is able to pay them, an injunction is normally refused.
The same test applies in reverse to protect the respondent if the injunction is granted but the trial eventually fails.
Balance Assessment
Court evaluations next turn to the balance of convenience to weigh the harm each party might suffer. This comparative analysis examines which course of action is likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice. If the factors are evenly balanced, the court prefers to maintain the status quo.
Financial Remedy
Cross undertakings in damages from the applicant represent the standard protection for the respondent. If the injunction is granted but later found to be unjustified, the applicant must compensate the respondent for any losses caused by the temporary restriction. This financial commitment prevents frivolous filings.
