An injunction in civil litigation is a court order that directs a person (or entity) to do something or to stop doing something. Injunctions are a discretionary judicial remedy most often used in situations where monetary damages are insufficient to protect against a potentially irreparable harm. For example, a judge may issue an injunction to prevent a real estate developer from tearing down a historic landmark or may issue an injunction to compel a company to remediate damage caused by an oil spill.
The origins of the injunction can be traced to ancient Rome where the chief judicial magistrate had the authority to issue an interdict, commanding or prohibiting something from being done. Beginning in the late 14 th century, the English Court of Chancery developed the use of injunctions as an equitable remedy to prevent torts like waste and nuisance or to compel parties to settle cases.
Injunctions are used in civil and common law jurisdictions; in some countries they are referred to as “interim measures.” Most civil law jurisdictions codify when injunctive relief is warranted, with legislation setting forth rules addressing proportionality and necessity. Judges in common law systems have more discretion to decide whether to issue an injunction. In both civil and common law countries, injunctive relief is not available to petitioners who delayed filing their claims without justification or who engaged in unethical conduct involving fraud or bad faith (“unclean hands”).
Types of Injunctions
There are three common types of injunctions: temporary (often called a temporary restraining order), preliminary, and permanent.
Permanent injunctions are most often issued after a trial on the merits as part of the court’s final judgment. A preliminary injunction issued earlier in the case may be converted to a permanent injunction.
The penalty for violating an injunction is usually monetary. However for a severe and willful breach of an injunction, there may be a court hearing to determine whether the breaching party should be held in civil contempt and the court may craft an order to compel compliance.
Injunctions Around the World
Courts issue injunctions in different types of commercial litigation including consumer protection, intellectual property disputes, and antitrust. A federal court in Brazil issued a temporary injunction prohibiting a company from sharing consumers’ data, a Japanese court issued an injunction protecting the interests of a patent holder in a pending infringement action, and a Swedish court enjoined sale of a product in a regulatory case involving generic pharmaceuticals.
Injunctions are also used in human rights cases. For example, an Australian court issued a temporary injunction barring the removal of homeless people from an encampment to protect against potential harm to their wellbeing and a British court issued a temporary injunction barring the deportation of an asylum seeker until his case could be heard.
Relatedly, injunctive relief is increasingly used in environmental law disputes. A Norwegian court issued an injunction banning the development of three oil and gas fields in the North Sea in a case alleging failure to assess climate and environmental impact; a court in Spain issued an injunction mandating the protection of water sources against a company whose livestock operations caused extensive pollution; and a court in Zambia issued an interim injunction prohibiting construction in an ecologically sensitive area.
Procedural Variation
National legal systems have developed different rules for when injunctions can be issued, including standards of proof for early and preliminary relief. The United States imposes a high burden on the party who seeks a temporary injunction. At a hearing, the petitioner must show: (i) a likelihood of success after litigation, (ii) potential injury that cannot be compensated through monetary damages, (iii) denying the injunction will cause more harm than granting it, and (iv) the injunction will not undermine the public interest. U.S. courts must first engage in a full equitable analysis before issuing an injunction as the appropriate remedy.
Canadian courts engage in a similar analysis though with some distinctions. In Canada, there is a presumptive right to a permanent injunction after a successful intellectual property suit. Courts in Israel, Poland, and the United Kingdom only require a credible claim of infringement to issue a preliminary injunction. In Italy, France, and the Netherlands, judges must issue injunctions when they do find an infringement.
Another procedural distinction among jurisdictions involves the posting of a bond as a condition for granting a preliminary injunction. In most common law jurisdictions, the party requesting an injunction must post a bond or promise to compensate the opposing party in the event the injunction proves to be unwarranted. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions across Latin America, Europe, and Asia, judges may have discretion over whether to require a bond. However, in Sweden, a civil law jurisdiction, the party requesting an interim injunction is usually required to provide security, such as a bank guarantee, to cover potential damages incurred if their claim is ultimately denied.
Special Forms of Injunctive Relief
Nationwide Injunctions
Traditional injunctive relief is limited to the parties involved in the litigation and usually the jurisdiction where the action was brought. Nationwide injunctions (a.k.a. "universal" or "cosmic" injunctions) have been used in the United States to block or compel federal governmental action affecting not only the petitioners but also similarly situated individuals or entities across the country. A 2025 decision of the United States Supreme Court significantly limited the use of nationwide injunctions, ruling that in most cases injunctive relief is limited to the parties in a lawsuit. Although nationwide injunctions may no longer be available in the United States, remedies in class action litigation and some types of administrative law cases may offer similar relief to broader categories of litigants. Other countries do not recognize the term “nationwide injunction;” however constitutionally mandated remedies in structural litigation, see below, have been extended to non-parties.
Structural Injunctions
In many countries, courts are empowered to grant injunctive relief that compels public institutions to engage in reforms tailored to address the meritorious claim in litigation. This type of remedy – sometimes referred to as a structural injunction, or in South and South East Asian countries, a writ of continuing mandamus – is unusual as it safeguards the interests of whole groups rather than just the parties to the litigation. Structural injunctions are most often found in public interest litigation that seeks to address violations of civil and individual rights. The Supreme Court of India has issued structural injunctions to improve the working conditions of bonded labor and to release prisoners held in unreasonably lengthy periods of pretrial detention. In South Africa, a structural injunction was issued in a case involving the voting rights of prisoners. In Bangladesh, such injunctions have been issued in litigation over the right to housing. In Hungary, an injunction was issued to compel school desegregation to made education accessible to the Roma. In Colombia, the Constitutional Court issued an injunction mandating remedial action to address the rights of internally displaced persons. And in Brazil, the Supreme Court issued a structural injunction that involved a plan for Rio de Janeiro to reduce police violence.
Anti-Suit Injunctions
Complex transnational commercial litigation may involve lawsuits claiming the same relief in more than one jurisdiction. This parallel litigation is costly and can lead to inconsistent judgments in different countries. The anti-suit injunction is a court order barring parties from pursuing the same litigation in a second (foreign) jurisdiction; this remedy is most frequently found in arbitration cases. The anti-suit injunction is recognized in common law jurisdictions like the Australia, Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States; it is not permitted in most civil law jurisdictions which consider this type of injunction to be a violation of national judicial sovereignty and access to justice. However, some civil law countries now permit variations of the anti- suit injunction. For example, Chinese courts allow their use in maritime and intellectual property cases. And in a 2019 case, a German court issued an anti-anti-suit injunction in an international arbitration dispute, prohibiting a party from seeking an anti-suit injunction.
Mareva (Asset-Freezing) Injunction
In a 1975 maritime case, Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A., England’s Court of Appeals granted an order restraining the defendant from moving assets until the litigation concluded. This type of asset-freezing injunction, known as a Mareva Injunction, prohibits parties from hiding or moving assets outside of a court’s jurisdiction to protect the interests of the prospective judgment-winner. Mareva injunctions are interlocutory and usually issued ex parte. They may be domestic or worldwide in scope. The movant must show a real risk of asset dissipation or that the potential judgment would be compromised without judicial intervention. To protect enjoined parties, asset-freezing injunctions usually do not exceed the maximum claimed damages.
Many other common law jurisdictions also allow anti-freezing injunctions, including Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Nigeria. United States courts do not issue anti- freezing injunctions but instead employ prejudgment writs of attachment. Some civil law jurisdictions have crafted Mareva-like remedies. In Spain, it is called an embargo or retention measure and serves to freeze assets while litigation is pending. Other civil law countries have similar procedural mechanisms though they are not characterized as injunctions. French courts offer the saisie-conservatoire, or precautionary seizure, to creditors who can demonstrate circumstances that threaten the recovery of the debt. China’s version is called a property preservation order.
Dynamic Injunction
The European Union pioneered a new form of injunctive relief for digital intellectual property cases. A dynamic injunction is a court order that authorizes rights holders to block new websites that infringe their IP interests. In a Belgian case, plaintiffs requested a live domain blocking order with “dynamic” follow up; this order prohibited the unauthorized streaming of a protected sports program on different domains. Courts in Australia, Denmark, and Sweden have issued similar orders. In India, a court issued a “dynamic-plus” injunction that automatically extends infringement protections to certain new copyrighted content. This injunction not only tracks the conduct of the IP-infringer, but also the future broadcasts of the rights-holder. In one case, a claimant received preemptive protection against future unlawful pirating of new cricket matches the claimant planned to broadcast.
Super Injunction
A party may seek an injunction prohibiting the disclosure of private or confidential information pending the outcome of litigation. Courts in the United Kingdom have, in rare instances, granted an injunction to restrain disclosure of the existence of an injunction. Known as “super injunctions,” these orders have been used to block premature disclosure of injunctions involving alleged corporate malfeasance or those that protect the identity of well-known or celebrity litigants. In one UK case, after the identity of thousands of Afghan refugees was erroneously released in a data breach, the British government attempted to covertly relocate them. The court granted the government’s request for an injunction blocking disclosure of the data breach as well as a “super injunction” to block disclosure of the existence of the injunction.