An injunction against an individual professional personally restrains or compels that named person. It is not obtained merely because the person works for an organisation, signed a disputed assessment or made a decision later found wrong. The applicant must show a legal basis for personal liability or a jurisdiction that permits an order against that individual, and must explain why an order against the organisation alone is insufficient.
| Critical distinction | A complaint to an employer or professional regulator can investigate conduct and impose employment or regulatory sanctions, but it is not an injunction. Conversely, a civil court does not use an injunction simply to discipline a professional or declare them unfit to practise. |
|---|
1. Identify the person, conduct and cause of action
Name the individual accurately, identify whether they acted personally or only as the organisation’s agent, set out the exact act threatened or repeated, and connect it to a cause of action such as harassment, trespass, misuse of private information, breach of confidence, discrimination where personal liability exists, assault, false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office or another applicable statutory route. Judicial review ordinarily challenges the public body or decision-maker in the form required by public-law procedure, not an employee as a substitute for the authority.
2. Interim burden
The applicant must support the application with evidence. The usual interim questions are whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be adequate, where the balance of convenience lies and how to minimise injustice before trial. The evidence should establish a real, imminent or continuing risk linked to this defendant, not speculation based only on job title. If the requested order compels positive action, the court may require a particularly strong case and precise safeguards.
3. Final burden and standard
For a final civil injunction, the claimant ordinarily proves the underlying facts and cause of action on the balance of probabilities and persuades the court that future restraint or positive relief is just and appropriate. The likelihood of continuation or repetition is important. Where the injunction is sought under a specific statute, that statute’s test controls. Allegations of fraud, malice, fabrication or abuse of office must be pleaded clearly and supported by cogent evidence; the civil standard does not permit guesswork.
4. Evidence against the individual
How it could apply to the book’s scenarios
| Scenario | Possible personal order |
|---|---|
| Repeated threats about care or child removal | If repeated communications satisfy harassment or another cause of action, an order may restrain the named person from making specified threats or contacting the claimant outside defined professional channels. One inaccurate statement is not automatically harassment or fraud. |
| Fabricated or disclosed information | A narrowly drawn order may restrain threatened misuse of private information or breach of confidence. It cannot prevent lawful safeguarding disclosure, evidence to a court or compliance with statutory duties. |
| Physical entry, restraint or removal | Trespass, assault or false-imprisonment principles may support personal restraint where unlawful repetition is threatened. An injunction cannot prohibit conduct authorised by a valid court order or statute. |
| Withholding care | An individual order is suitable only if that professional personally controls the relevant act and owes the relied-on obligation. Usually the provider or public body is the defendant capable of staffing and funding care. |
| Care-home or sheltered-housing professional | The order might restrict specified harassment, retaliation, unlawful contact or disclosure by a manager or worker, while an organisational order addresses policies, staffing and service delivery. |
Notice, safeguards and enforcement
The individual normally receives notice and a fair opportunity to respond. Without-notice relief demands genuine urgency, full and frank disclosure and a return hearing. The applicant may be required to give an undertaking in damages. The order must permit lawful professional, safeguarding and court duties where appropriate; overbroad restrictions can endanger the care recipient or impede child protection. Knowing breach of a clear, served order may be contempt, proved to the applicable criminal standard.
Choosing the correct defendant
Sue or apply against the organisation where the requested outcome requires budgets, staffing, policies, records or institutional decisions. Seek personal relief where a recognised cause of action concerns the individual’s own threatened or continuing conduct and organisational relief would not adequately protect the claimant. In some cases both may be proper defendants, but the evidence and proposed order must distinguish their responsibilities rather than treating employment as automatic personal liability.
Procedure source: Civil Procedure Rules Part 25 requires evidence for interim remedies and permits without-notice relief only for good reason. The High Court’s section 37 power is discretionary. Family, Court of Protection, harassment, housing and public-law proceedings use additional specialist rules; the correct form, court and test must be checked before applying.