An injunction is a court order requiring an organisation to do something (a mandatory injunction) or stop doing something (a prohibitory injunction). It is a remedy, not a free-standing finding that the organisation behaved badly. The applicant must identify a court with jurisdiction, a legal cause of action or public-law basis, the correct legal entity, and an order the court can define, supervise and enforce.
| Legal boundary | There is no general application to obtain an injunction merely because care is inadequate or an organisation is feared. The claim might arise in judicial review, contract, tort, equality or human-rights law, harassment, property or housing law, the Court of Protection, family proceedings or another statutory jurisdiction. Each route has its own court, standing, time limit, procedure and remedies. |
|---|
1. Identify the organisation and legal duty
Name the entity that made or controls the decision: for example, a local authority, NHS body, registered care provider, housing association, management company or employer. A trading name, care-home name or multi-agency team may not be a legal person. Identify the underlying right and duty—such as an assessed-care duty, contractual promise, statutory equality duty, Article 8 obligation, tenancy right, duty of care or prohibition on harassment—and show that the defendant has power to comply.
2. Interim injunction: what must be shown
An interim injunction preserves safety or the practical position until trial or final determination. Under CPR Part 25, the application must normally be supported by evidence and may be made before a claim only where urgent or otherwise desirable in the interests of justice. The usual private-law approach asks whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, where the balance of convenience lies, and what course creates the lowest risk of injustice. A mandatory order requiring positive action is commonly approached with particular caution because it may effectively grant the disputed remedy before trial. The exact test may differ in judicial review, human-rights, family, harassment or statutory proceedings.
3. Final injunction: burden and standard of proof
At final hearing, the claimant ordinarily bears the legal burden of proving the facts necessary for the cause of action on the balance of probabilities: more likely than not. Serious allegations remain subject to that civil standard, although stronger and more cogent evidence may be needed before a court accepts an inherently unlikely allegation. The claimant must also show that an injunction is an appropriate discretionary remedy—for example, that the wrong is continuing or likely to recur and damages or another remedy would not adequately protect the right.
4. Evidence for an organisation
5. Notice, urgency and undertakings
The organisation should ordinarily receive the application and have an opportunity to respond. A without-notice order requires a good reason, full and frank disclosure of material facts including points adverse to the applicant, and usually a prompt return hearing. The court may require an undertaking in damages, meaning a promise to compensate loss caused by the interim order if it later proves unjustified; the court decides whether and on what terms, with public-law and protected-person cases requiring context-sensitive treatment. Applicants must comply with filing, service and any undertaking to issue the main claim.
How it could apply to the book’s scenarios
| Scenario | Possible organisational order |
|---|---|
| Denied essential care | An urgent mandatory order may seek reassessment, interim support or performance of a clear obligation where the substantive public-law, contractual or other claim and urgency are established. Courts avoid becoming day-to-day care managers, so the requested terms must be workable. |
| Care home | A prohibitory order may restrain an unlawful eviction, discriminatory restriction, harassment or specific interference; a mandatory order may require a legally owed step. CQC complaints or safeguarding do not automatically provide the same remedy. |
| Sheltered or extra-care housing | An order may restrain unlawful exclusion, termination, harassment or withdrawal of a contracted service, depending on tenancy, contract, equality and public-law rights. The landlord and care provider may require separate defendants and separate orders. |
| Child removal | A civil injunction cannot casually override a family-court order. Urgent relief normally belongs in the family proceedings, appeal, inherent jurisdiction or judicial-review route applicable to the public decision. |
| Threatened retaliation for requesting care | If the conduct satisfies harassment, discrimination, victimisation, contract or public-law tests, an order may restrain specified retaliation. A broad command to ‘act lawfully’ is usually too vague. |
Enforcement and limits
An injunction must be clear and properly served. Knowing breach may amount to contempt of court, with serious consequences, but contempt must be proved to the applicable criminal standard. The order binds the named organisation and those through whom it acts according to its terms; it does not automatically establish personal contempt by every employee. Variation or discharge may be sought if circumstances change.
Procedure source: Civil Procedure Rules Part 25 governs interim remedies and evidence. Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 gives the High Court power to grant an injunction where just and convenient, but that power does not remove the need for a recognised legal basis and principled exercise of discretion. Specialist legal advice is important because the correct jurisdiction and urgency route can determine whether relief is available.