Injunction

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order, whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing, certain acts. The party that fails to adhere to the injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions for failing to follow the court's order. In some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered serious criminal offenses that merit arrest and possible prison sentences.

Temporary restraints

In the United States, a temporary restraining order (TRO) may be issued for short term. A temporary restraining order usually lasts while a motion for preliminary injunction is being decided, and the court decides whether to drop the order or to issue a preliminary injunction.

A temporary restraining order may be granted ex parte, that is, without informing in advance the party to whom the temporary restraining order is directed. Usually, a party moves ex parte to prevent an adversary from having notice of one's intentions. The order is granted to prevent the adversary from acting to frustrate the purpose of the action, for example, by wasting or hiding assets (as often occurs in dissolution of marriage) or disclosing a trade secret that had been the subject of a non-disclosure agreement.

In the United States, in order to obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm,absent the order; (3) that less harm will result to the defendant if the TRO issues than to the plaintiffs if the TRO does not issue; and (4) that the public interest, if any, weighs in favor of plaintiff.^[1] If the balance of hardships tips in favor of plaintiff, then the plaintiff must only raise "questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberative investigation."^[2]

Apprehended violence order

Sometimes, a court grants an apprehended violence order (AVO) to a person who fears violence or harassment from their harasser.^[where?] A court can issue an apprehended violence order if it believes, on the balance of probabilities, that a person has reasonable grounds to fear personal violence, harassing conduct, molestation, intimidation, or stalking. If a defendant knowingly contravenes a prohibition or restriction specified in the order, he or she can be subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Many states have injunction laws that are written specifically to stop domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault or harassment and these are commonly called restraining orders, orders of protection, abuse prevention orders, or protective orders.

Rationale behind injunctions

This injunctive power to restore the status quo ante; that is, to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated, is essential to the concept of fairness (equity). For example, money damages would be of scant benefit to a land owner who wished simply to prevent someone from repeatedly trespassing on his land.

Injunctions in U.S. labor law context

After the United States government successfully used an injunction to outlaw the Pullman boycott in 1894 in the case of In re Debs, employers found that they could obtain federal court injunctions to ban strikes and organizing activities of all kinds by unions. These injunctions were often extremely broad; one injunction issued by a federal court in the 1920s effectively barred the United Mine Workers of America from talking to workers who had signed yellow dog contracts with their employers.

Unable to limit what they called "government by injunction" in the courts, labor and its allies persuaded the U.S. Congress in 1932 to pass the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which imposed so many procedural and substantive limits on the federal courts' power to issue injunctions as to effectively prohibit all federal court injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes. A number of states followed suit and enacted "Little Norris-LaGuardia Acts" that imposed similar limitations on state courts' powers. The courts have since recognized a limited exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act's strict limitations in those cases in which a party seeks injunctive relief to enforce the grievance arbitration provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.

Gag order

A gag order is an order by a court or government restricting information or comment from being made public.

Super-injunction

In England and Wales a new form of injunction known as a "super-injunction" is a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it.^[3]^[4] An example was the super-injunction raised in September 2009 by Carter-Ruck solicitors on behalf of oil trader Trafigura, prohibiting the reporting of an internal Trafigura report into the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal. The existence of the super-injunction was only revealed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question (mention in which Parliamentary privilege permits the disclosure without being held in contempt of court), which was circulated on the internet, leading to the injunction being varied (before it could be challenged in court) to permit reporting of the question. By long legal tradition, parliamentary proceedings may be reported without restriction.^[5] Parliamentary proceedings are only covered by qualified privilege.

Common reasons for restraining orders

stalking
domestic violence
harassment
bullying (in some cases)
physical or sexual abuse
the wrongful transfer of real property, also called fraudulent conveyance
the disclosure of sensitive information in line with the Official Secrets Act 1989 (UK only)
trademark infringement
copyright infringement
patent infringement
trade secret disclosure
tortious interference of contract
criminal contempt
civil contempt

References

On the Difference Between Lawsuit, a Restraining Order, and an Injunction

Legal Sources

^ See, e.g., Pappan Enters. v. Hardee's Food Sys., 143 F.3d 800, 803 (3d Cir. 1998).
^ Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1953).
^ Press Gazette, 14 October 2009, MPs slam 'super injunction' which gagged Guardian
^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/13/super-injunctions-guardian-carter-ruck
^ The Guardian, 13 October 2009, Trafigura drops bid to gag Guardian over MP's question

[1] See, e.g., Pappan Enters. v. Hardee's Food Sys., 143 F.3d 800, 803 (3d Cir. 1998).

[2] Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 740 (2d Cir. 1953).

[3] Press Gazette, 14 October 2009, MPs slam 'super injunction' which gagged Guardian

[4] ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/13/super-injunctions-guardian-carter-ruck

[5] The Guardian, 13 October 2009, Trafigura drops bid to gag Guardian over MP's question

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]