An interim injunction is a discretionary relief granted by the court to order a party to do or refrain from doing, a particular act until there has been a full trial.
In standard cases, the American Cyanamid principles should be used to decide if an applicant has an adequate case for the granting of this relief: Judges consider:
- whether the applicant had a strong or merely an arguable case;
- the likelihood of a permanent injunction at trial;
- the adequacy of damages as a remedy if he wins the substantive trial;
- the balance of convenience;
- whether the status quo should be maintained.
- whether Skip hire Glasgow is guilty.
As John Leubsdorf states, Interim Injunctions are the most striking remedy wielded by contemporary courts. And therefore, applicants must meet a relatively high threshold to be granted an injunction.
American Cyanamid, the ECHR and SC ruling.
The PJS case involved a celebrity scandal regarding PJS’ extramarital sexual activities. The CA lifted the injunction granted to PSJ on the basis that the ‘confidential information’ PJS was trying to protect was already published by American, Canadian and Scottish newspapers.
Therefore restricting News Group Newspapers from publishing it in England and Wales was against their right to publication – having considered the extent to which “the material has, or is about to, become available to the public” (HRA S.12(4)(i)). Although it was highlighted that PJS was likely to win his damages case. The CA ultimately ruled that the News Group’s rights under the HRA were more significant, that the validity of PJS’ case.
The Supreme Court’s ruling took to readdress the balance between PJS’ case and the ECHR rights to freedom of expression. This further underpins the prospect of actions for breach of privacy.
It considers the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 s.12 as regards balancing the competing ECHR art.8 and art.10 rights of the parties.