SQE1 interim injunctions: what you must know and how it is tested
SQE1 interim injunctions questions test the American Cyanamid test, the cross-undertaking in damages, and the extra requirements for freezing injunctions. The court uses the power in s37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, with procedure in CPR Part 25. Read it with the wider Dispute Resolution guide.
The rules to apply
On an application for a prohibitory interim injunction the court asks three questions in order (American Cyanamid v Ethicon). First, is there a serious issue to be tried? The judge does not try the merits. Second, would damages be an adequate remedy for either side? If damages would compensate the claimant, and the defendant could pay, the injunction is usually refused. If damages would not be adequate for the claimant, the court asks whether the claimant's undertaking in damages would adequately protect the defendant. Third, where the balance of convenience lies, which includes preserving the status quo.
A mandatory interim injunction, which compels a positive act, needs a stronger case, since the risk of injustice is higher. The claimant ordinarily gives a cross-undertaking in damages to compensate the defendant if the injunction proves wrongly granted. If the application is made without notice, it is justified only by real urgency or secrecy, the claimant has a duty of full and frank disclosure, and the order will set a return date.
A freezing injunction restrains a defendant from disposing of assets to keep them available to satisfy a judgment. The claimant must show a good arguable case, that the defendant has assets (in England and Wales or, for a worldwide order, elsewhere), and a real risk that the defendant will dissipate assets. That risk must be shown by evidence, not just a large claim or a foreign defendant. The injunction is restricted to assets up to the value of the claim. Breach of any injunction is contempt of court.
Traps examiners use
- Treating the application as a mini trial of the merits.
- Forgetting the cross-undertaking in damages.
- Granting a freezing injunction on a strong claim alone, without evidence of real risk of dissipation.
- Saying all interim injunctions are mandatory if they change the position. The key is whether they compel a positive step.
- Omitting full and frank disclosure on a without notice application.
Worked question 1
Pathway Ltd applies for an interim injunction to stop a former employee using its customer list until trial. The court finds a serious issue to be tried. What is the next question under American Cyanamid?
- A. Whether the claimant is likely to win at trial.
- B. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party.
- C. Whether the order would be mandatory or prohibitory.
- D. Whether the defendant has any assets.
- E. Whether the application was made with notice.
Answer: B. After the serious issue, the court asks whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and if not, whether the claimant's cross-undertaking would adequately protect the defendant. Only then does the court weigh the balance of convenience. A confuses the test with a merits assessment, and the others are not the next step.
Worked question 2
Brightwater LLP has a strong claim for £400,000 against Corvid Ltd, a solvent company with substantial English assets. Brightwater fears Corvid might lose the assets. The only evidence is that Corvid sold a minor asset in the ordinary course of business. Should the court grant a freezing injunction?
- A. Yes, because the claim is strong and the amount is large.
- B. Yes, because Corvid is a company and could be wound up.
- C. No, because the evidence does not show a real risk that Corvid will dissipate assets to defeat judgment.
- D. No, because freezing injunctions are never available against companies.
- E. Yes, as a matter of course in every claim over £100,000.
Answer: C. A freezing injunction needs a real risk of dissipation shown by evidence. An ordinary course sale is not that. A strong claim is relevant to the good arguable case requirement but is not enough. D is wrong, as companies can be defendants, and E invents a threshold.
Checklist before you move on
- Prohibitory or mandatory?
- Serious issue to be tried?
- Are damages an adequate remedy for either side?
- Where does the balance of convenience lie?
- Cross-undertaking given? Without notice: urgency and full disclosure?
- Freezing: good arguable case, assets, real risk of dissipation?
Test yourself on more original questions in our SQE1 practice questions.
Questions
What is the American Cyanamid test?
A serious issue to be tried, whether damages are adequate for either party, and the balance of convenience, which includes preserving the status quo.
What is a cross-undertaking in damages?
The claimant's promise to compensate the defendant for loss caused by the injunction if it later turns out the injunction should not have been granted.
What must be shown for a freezing injunction?
A good arguable case, assets within the jurisdiction or elsewhere, and a real risk that the defendant will dissipate those assets so a judgment would go unsatisfied.
Related
- SQE1 Dispute Resolution
- SQE1 practice questions: how to answer single best answer items
- SQE1 mock: how to time, pace and review it
Sources: SRA: SQE1 Assessment Specification (from 1 September 2026); Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37; CPR Part 25. Checked 10 November 2026.