# Interim remedies: injunctions and related relief

> **Key takeaway:** CPR 25. Ordinary interim injunction: Cyanamid + cross-undertaking. Freezing: good arguable case + dissipation risk + full disclosure. Search orders exceptional. HRA s.12 may raise the bar for speech restraints.

- **Jurisdiction:** England & Wales
- **Practice area:** Civil Procedure
- **Last reviewed:** 2026-08-04
- **Interactive page:** https://kttclegal.info/library/notes/CivilProcedure/interim-remedies-injunctions
- **Keywords:** interim injunction, American Cyanamid, freezing injunction, Mareva, search order, CPR Part 25, cross-undertaking, without notice

## What is this about?

CPR Part 25 provides interim remedies including interim injunctions, freezing injunctions, and search orders. The ordinary interim injunction test follows American Cyanamid, with specialised higher thresholds for certain free-speech, privacy, and delivery-up contexts.

## What is the core rule?

The court may grant an interim injunction where there is a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favours relief, usually supported by a cross-undertaking in damages (American Cyanamid). Freezing injunctions (Mareva) require a good arguable case, real risk of dissipation, and full and frank disclosure on without-notice applications. Search orders (Anton Piller) are exceptional and tightly conditioned. Speed, evidence quality, and procedural compliance often decide the application.

## What are the elements or test?

1. Which interim remedy (prohibitory injunction, mandatory, freezing, search, interim payment)?
2. Serious issue to be tried / specialised merits threshold?
3. Balance of convenience and adequacy of damages
4. Cross-undertaking in damages workable?
5. Without notice: full and frank disclosure duty met?
6. Penal notice and service practicalities

## Which authorities matter?

- **Civil Procedure Rules, Part 25 and PD 25A** — Procedural home for interim remedies.
- **American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396** — Leading ordinary interim injunction framework.
- **Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1, [2007] 1 WLR 320** — House of Lords on freezing injunction jurisdiction and principles.
- **Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253** — Higher merits threshold themes for interim restraints affecting freedom of expression (HRA s.12 context).

## How does this apply in practice?

Mandatory interim injunctions face a higher practical bar. Privacy/media injunctions are specialist. Always draft a realistic cross-undertaking and fortification if the applicant is weak. Return date discipline matters after without-notice relief.

## What are common pitfalls?

- Without-notice applications without true urgency or full disclosure
- Omitting a cross-undertaking
- Treating Cyanamid as universal for free-speech cases
- Over-wide freezing orders without clear asset risk evidence

## When would a practitioner use this?

Urgent applications to restrain breach of covenant, preserve assets, or maintain status quo pending trial.

## Quick reference

CPR 25. Ordinary interim injunction: Cyanamid + cross-undertaking. Freezing: good arguable case + dissipation risk + full disclosure. Search orders exceptional. HRA s.12 may raise the bar for speech restraints.

---

*Reference material from [KTTC Legal](https://kttclegal.info/), not legal advice. Work product supports instructing solicitors and barristers under their supervision. England & Wales.*