Interim and final injunctions

6 April 2025 changes

The CPR provisions relevant to interim injunctive relief were amended with effect from 6 April 2025. In particular, CPR 25 was revised extensively and the accompanying Practice Directions, including the example draft orders included in Annex A and Annex B of Practice Direction 25A, were revoked. Three new ‘model orders’ also came into force on 6 April 2025.

The changes were not intended to materially alter the substantive law or practice. However, the numbering and location of many of the provisions were changed. Case law and commentary which pre-dates 6 April 2025 should therefore be approached with some caution as they may refer to the old provisions, numbering and standard orders.

For further background, including links to the model orders in force from 6 April 2025, and the provisions as in force prior to 6 April 2025, see:

  1. Q&A: Where can I find information on the changes to Part 25 coming into force on 6 April 2025?

  2. Practice Note: Interim remedies—CPR Part 25, Practice Direction 25A and Practice Direction 25B—destination and derivation tables

For the avoidance of doubt, references in

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents