Case Management, Interlocutory Applications, and Interim Relief
What the exam tests
This domain tests case management, interlocutory applications and interim relief: timetable compliance, unless orders, injunction principles, freezing orders and security for costs.
Core rules
- Case management is proactive. Directions set deadlines for pleadings, disclosure, witness statements and experts. An unless order is coercive: failure to comply can automatically strike out the claim or defence unless the court grants relief.
- Interlocutory applications are made by summons or application supported by affidavit. Urgent ex parte relief requires full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including adverse facts and authorities.
- The American Cyanamid test for an interlocutory injunction asks whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lies. The court preserves the status quo and normally requires an undertaking in damages.
- A freezing order, often called a Mareva injunction, needs a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation and proportionality. A search order, often called an Anton Piller order, needs a strong prima facie case, clear evidence of possession and a real risk of destruction.
- Security for costs may be ordered where the claimant is ordinarily resident abroad or impecunious, but the court balances access to justice.
Worked example
A claimant learns the defendant is moving stock abroad. A freezing order is sought. The good arguable case is shown by unpaid invoices and admissions. Risk of dissipation is supported by evidence of asset transfers, not merely foreign residence. The application must disclose that the defendant has a counterclaim and that part of the stock is perishable, so the order is limited to preserving value.
Traps
No full and frank disclosure; an overbroad freezing order; no undertaking in damages; seeking an injunction when damages are adequate; ignoring an unless order until after breach.