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

Court of Appeal substitutes defamatory meaning following preliminary issue trial (Hemming v Poulton)

TMT analysis: The Court of Appeal substituted defamatory meanings but strived to uphold the trial judge’s discretionary decision on the ‘Chase’ levels. The modifications made by the Court of Appeal clarified the precise defamatory imputations that will frame the rest of the litigation. Lord Justice Warby gave cautionary warnings in respect of trials of preliminary issues (where CPR PD 53B, para 6.1 applies) in defamation cases, including when they are suitable and how practitioners can help guide the judge through the issues if they are. He gave guidance about how the well-established legal principles are to be applied when determining meaning. Written by Sophie Mitchell, barrister specialising in Media Law.

Enhanced interest on costs to be calculated using Aggregate Costs method after Part 36 expiry (Barry v Essex CC)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Deputy District Judge Rathod, sitting at the Court County in Basildon, has held that where a claimant succeeds in a claim for damages at Trial and beats their own Part 36 offer, the interest on costs incurred post-expiry of the offer is calculated by applying x% per annum to the aggregate of all costs incurred by the claimant after expiry (‘the Aggregate Costs method’). Interest is not calculated on each individual item of costs incurred after expiry of the offer, based on when that individual item of costs was incurred (‘Individual Item method’). This case is relevant for all practitioners advising on Part 36 offers. It provides much needed clarity on the proper approach to interest on costs post-expiry. This may make a real difference to the decision to accept a Part 36 offer, particularly with respect to costs not incurred until closer to trial. This case is also notable for its holding that the court was not bound by the result of relevant Court of Appeal authority, which was limited to its facts. Written by Kyran Kanda, barrister at St Philips Chambers.

From chaos to cohesion—a new architecture for contempt of court

Corporate Crime analysis: The Law Commission's Contempt of Court: Report (Part 1) on Liability, published on 17 November 2025, recommends the abolition of the historic civil/criminal contempt divide and the reform of the current law of contempt by way of four new types of contempt. Christopher Gribbin and Molly Vann of Mishcon de Reya LLP examine the Law Commission’s overhaul of the law of contempt, which includes a refreshed general contempt test, targeted offence definitions, and recalibrated rules around publication risk—particularly shifting ‘active’ proceedings from arrest to charge to harmonise with modern privacy jurisprudence. This new framework signals a forward-leaning commitment to clarity and consistency—while quietly acknowledging that the justice system’s information architecture must adapt to an era defined by instantaneous, decentralised communication.

MoJ announces UK among first to recognise digital assets as personal property

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has announced that England, Wales and Northern Ireland are now among the first jurisdictions in the world to confirm in law that digital assets such as cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) can be recognised as personal property. Under the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, this recognition provides clearer legal protections and aligns digital assets with the treatment given to traditional forms of property. The Act establishes a new category of personal property specifically for digital assets, allowing them to be inherited, transferred and recovered in insolvency proceedings in the same way as traditional assets.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News