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:

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Master of the Rolls delivers speech on Digital Justice System

The Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, has delivered a speech at the International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution considering the role of the Digital Justice System (DJS) in resolving disputes. Vos highlighted the significant changes brought by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which established the Online Procedure Rules Committee (OPRC) and its role in creating rules for online processes and the pre-action space. He noted that the powers of the OPRC will complement, rather than replace, those of existing rule committees, with the aim that online processes will eventually be governed by rules made by the OPRC. He clarified the role of the DJS and the economic and psychological advantages it could bring for those resolving disputes. He concluded by examining the role of AI in dispute resolution and the international dimension of the DJS.

Disclosure in the context of jurisdiction challenges—court reaffirms two-stage test and emphasises proportionality (Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has clarified the test governing applications pursuant to CPR 31.12 for specific disclosure in the context of jurisdiction challenges. Mr Justice Dias re-affirmed that the appropriate test remains the two-stage test set out in Rome v Punjab National Bank, and rejected the submission that a separate test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ applies. However, in that context, the court emphasised that disclosure must be both proportionate and targeted, and cautioned against allowing jurisdiction applications to evolve into ‘mini-trials’. Written by Alexandra Prato, Associate at RPC.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—1 May 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the 11th edition of the King’s Bench Guide and the Court of Appeal decision in Freeman v Home Farm Ellingham Ltd (specific performance); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Court compels disclosure in £500,000 phone crypto-theft case

Law360, London: The victim of a phone-snatching in London has secured a court order compelling four companies offering digital asset exchange services to disclose documents tied to an alleged fraud perpetrated against them after £500,000 (US$667,000) in cryptocurrency was drained from his account.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News