Country insight

All superior Australian courts have a wide power and discretion to grant both interlocutory orders and interlocutory injunctions. An interlocutory application, generally speaking, is an application which seeks any order other than a final judgment.

As in other jurisdictions, interlocutory injunctions are a species of interlocutory orders. Where those orders are sought on an urgent and temporary basis until a more extended form of relief is sought, they are often referred to as interim orders.

Interlocutory orders (including interlocutory injunctions) can require a party to undertake or refrain from a particular act, and can be granted before proceedings have commenced, once they are on foot and after judgment has been entered. Applications for these types of orders may be made by self-represented litigants or through legal representation.

The categories of non-urgent interlocutory orders that an applicant may seek are many and varied and include, by way of example, applications for security for costs, discovery (including preliminary discovery before proceedings have been commenced), the filing of expert evidence or orders for particulars. The evidence required to obtain non-urgent interlocutory orders will turn on the type of orders sought, although at the very least substantive interlocutory applications usually require a sworn affidavit to be filed.

The kinds of relief that can be sought by way of an urgent interlocutory injunction are equally varied. This is because the orders have the purpose of preserving the status quo until the rights of the parties can be determined finally, and the types of matters that can be heard by the court are vast. Common urgent interlocutory injunctions include applications for the preservation of property, the freezing of assets and applications to search premises to preserve evidence.

An applicant for an interlocutory injunction (either urgent or not) must prove that:

• there is a serious question of law to be tried;
• the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction; and
• an award of damages (at the conclusion of the proceeding) would not be an adequate remedy.

It is possible for urgent interlocutory injunction applications to be heard by the court ex parte, without the opposing party's involvement. Any orders given ex parte will generally operate only for a limited period of time until the matter can be brought to a hearing. The duration of any ex parte order will ordinarily be limited to a period terminating on the return date of the summons, which should be as early as practicable (usually not more than a day or two) after the order was made, when the respondent will have the opportunity to be heard. For this reason appeals of ex parte interlocutory injunctions are not usually made to a superior court. The applicant will then bear the onus of satisfying the court that the order should be continued or renewed. A party seeking an interlocutory injunction will ordinarily be obliged to give an undertaking to pay any damages by the defendant suffered as a result of the injunction in the event that the claim for final relief at trial fails.

The decision to grant an interlocutory injunction can be on an urgent basis to a relevant appeal court. The appeal court will usually list the matter before a single judge to assess the urgency (often the same or the day following the day on which the appeal is lodged) and set a timetable based on the information provided at that first listing.

Austrian law essentially provides three categories of interim (or temporary) relief measures:

• preventive measures, which are granted to secure the enforceability of an eventual judgment and may involve freezing a particular state of affairs or assets;
• regulatory measures, which are granted to regulate a temporary state of affairs; and
• performance measures, which provide a temporary performance of an alleged obligation.

However, this categorisation is of little practical importance. Despite specific provisions in certain legislation such as the Patent Act, the Copyright Act or the Trademark Act, interim relief measures are principally regulated by the Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung), which distinguishes between:

• execution for security; and
• interim injunctions.

Execution for security refers to the execution of an interim measure on the condition that the applicant pays security into court covering any potential damages to the respondent. To grant execution for security:

• the court must have issued an existing judgment, which will be the basis for execution;
• the claim must be a monetary claim; and
• the court must be convinced that:
  • without the execution for security, the enforcement of the monetary claim would be thwarted or considerably impeded; or
  • the judgment would most likely need to be enforced in states or another foreign jurisdiction in which the enforcement of the claim is not guaranteed either by international treaties or by Union law.

Interim injunctions are types of preventive measures granted to ensure immediate legal protection before, during or after trial. There are three types of interim relief injunctions, namely those for the purpose of securing:

• monetary claims;
• other claims; and
• a right or a legal relationship.

For further detail on interim injunctions, see below section on Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders.

Injunctive relief proceedings are commenced when one of the parties applies for injunctive relief at:

• the court where the substantive proceedings are pending; or
• where an injunctive measure is sought prior to the commencement of substantive proceedings, the District Court of the domicile (Allgemeiner Gerichtsstand) of the defendant.

The application will usually be accompanied by supporting evidence (evidence may be merely cited in the application but parties generally enclose it to avoid any delay in having to provide it subsequently). In specialized legal matters (family law disputes, labor and social law disputes, etc.), interim proceedings may also be initiated and granted ex officio.

For injunctive relief to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that:

• it has a prima facie claim, and for this purpose, the applicant will need to (i) include precise allegations regarding their claim in the application; or (ii) where the application and the lawsuit are filed at the same time, refer to such precise allegations in the main lawsuit; and
• their claim risks being frustrated if no injunctive relief is granted by the court.

If the court considers that (i) the above requirements (along with other formalities) are satisfied; and (ii) granting injunctive relief would (a) be proportionate; and (b) not result in an irreversible state of affairs, the court will order the injunctive relief sought by the applicant. Further, the court may order that injunctive relief is made conditional on the applicant's payment of security into court.

The procedure for issuing injunctive relief is not public and, in principle (unless the claim relates to civil rights), will be conducted without hearing the opposing party. However, as the opposing party has the right to object to the court's decision once the injunction has been granted, the court will usually serve the application on the opposing party in order to avoid a subsequent opposition (provided that notice will not lead to a delay likely to defeat the purpose of the injunction). If notice has been given, the opposing party may reply to the application within a short deadline set by the court (usually ranging between three days to two weeks).

Generally, injunctive relief is granted within one week of the application, although in relation to urgent matters, the court can grant interim relief within two or three days.

The respondent can appeal against decisions of the court within fourteen days after the service of the order granting the interim measure. In general, interim measures do not have suspensive effect unless specifically granted by the court.

The costs of interim relief proceedings have to be advanced by the applicant. However, the applicant may be reimbursed for such costs by the opposing party if the applicant is successful in the main proceedings.

In certain circumstances, usually when the amount in dispute exceeds EUR5,000, legal representation is mandatory. If represented by an attorney, the application for injunctive relief must be submitted to the court in writing. Otherwise, the application may be made orally, and a transcript will be taken.

A number of interim relief measures are available upon application to the competent courts. These include attachment of assets (for more details see Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders) and travel bans on individuals leaving Bahrain. 

Interim relief measures can be applied before, during and after judgment has been rendered (pending its execution). The law does not set out timeframes for applying for interim relief, nor does it set out the deadlines for the competent courts to issue rulings on such applications.

Bahraini law states that the claimant must submit an application to the competent court in order to obtain interim relief. The law does not further elaborate the procedure to obtain interim relief nor the criteria that an applicant must satisfy to obtain interim relief. Generally, where there is risk that the claimant’s rights may be hindered, the claimant may submit an application to obtain interim relief before the Court of Urgent Matters to expedite the measures. 

Bahraini law does not specify a timeframe for granting interim relief. That said, in practice the approximate timeframe between the commencement of the interim proceedings up to judgment would be three months. 

Litigants are not required to be represented by an attorney before the court. At each hearing (before any of the courts), the parties themselves and/or their authorized representatives can appear before the court. 

Any petition to appeal against an order for interim relief must be heard within eight days of such appeal.

The courts have the power to grant interim measures (voorlopige maatregelen/mesures provisoires) to protect the interests of the parties before the commencement and during the course of proceedings. A person seeking such interim measures has three options:

• Request the interim measures before the same court that has jurisdiction to rule on the merits.
• In summary proceedings (procedure in kort geding/action en référé), before the President of the Court of First Instance, Business Court or Employment Tribunal (depending on which court has jurisdiction), provided the plaintiff establishes that there is urgency – that is, the applicant would suffer harm were the case not dealt with through summary or expedited proceedings.
• By filing an ex parte application with the President of the Court of First Instance, Business Court of Employment Tribunal (depending on which court has jurisdiction). Since the party against whom relief is sought will not be informed of the proceedings until after the order is delivered, there is a high threshold for obtaining interim relief on an ex parte The plaintiff will have to show that there is an absolute necessity that justifies ex parte proceedings and thus a derogation from the adversarial nature of civil proceedings. This is the case where the addressee cannot be identified or where the element of surprise is essential for the relief to be effective.

Typical interim relief measures in Belgium include:

• the appointment of an expert, since the courts are in general reluctant (although it occasionally does happen in practice) to rely on evidence on technical issues submitted by the parties in, for instance, the form of a party-appointed expert report.
• the payment of a provisional sum of money, for example in a dispute relating to breach of contract.
• the production of documents.
• an injunction ordering a party to do or refrain from doing a particular action pending a decision on the merits - for instance, an order requiring a party continue performing a contract in a dispute about the termination of a contract, the suspension of construction works, the removal of an article from a magazine, newspaper or website, or the transfer of an asset to the other party.

To compel the addressee of the order to comply with it, the court can impose a penalty. For instance, in a case where the lessee of a car refuses to return the car to the lessor, the court could impose a penalty of EUR500 (or any other amount it deems appropriate) for every day the lessee fails to do so. If the addressee fails to comply with the order, it will have to pay the penalty to the other party. Though not required to do so, the court usually sets a maximum penalty that a party will be liable to pay.

If interim measures are granted in proceedings separate from the proceedings on the merits, a subsequent proceeding on the merits usually follows. However, this is not a requirement. It is, for example, possible that the parties may settle the dispute outside of court or that a merits proceeding is no longer required because a debtor has paid its debt. In addition, the judge granting interim relief sometimes sets a deadline by which a party must commence a proceeding on the merits. Failure to do so may lead to the expiry of the interim measure.

An order granting or rejecting interim measures can be appealed in the same way that any other judgment. Where the interim measure was granted on an ex parte basis, a special type of opposition (derdenverzet/tierce opposition) is available to the party against whom the order was directed. A party has one month from the service of the order to file the appeal or the opposition; the court will then decide the case anew on both points of law and fact. If, however, the interim measure is ordered by the same court that will subsequently rule on the merits, an appeal against the interim order must be brought together with the judgment on the merits.

Such an appeal or opposition does not suspend the enforceability of the interim relief. The party to whom to order has been granted may continue the enforcement even if the other party decides to appeal or file an opposition.

In Brazil, the Courts are entitled to grant two different kinds of interim relief measures:

• Urgent interim relief, which may be granted in cases where a party claims that their right is at risk of being irretrievably lost before the final award is given.
• Evident interim relief, which may be granted even when there is no immediate risk, but the right of the party seeking relief is substantially plausible and duly evidenced.

Thus, the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure allows the parties to request interim relief measures where:

• there is enough evidence of the certainty of the plaintiff’s right (Evident); or
• it is necessary to avoid irreparable harm that a party may suffer should the relief not be granted before the end of the proceedings (Urgent). 

Interim relief measures can be sought before proceedings have commenced, during the proceedings and after it, while pending execution of the judgment. In both cases, the alleged right may be challenged at a later stage in the proceedings.

The most common interim reliefs in civil litigation cases are:

• injunctions, requiring a party to do or not do a particular act;
• suspension of legal effect of certain acts; and
• attachment orders to preserve assets (see further details in Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders).

The suspension of legal effect of certain acts also means the temporary suspension of judicial acts (e.g. releasing one of the parties from the terms of an agreement or excluding a debtor’s name from the data base of credit protection agencies). In such cases, the targeted acts will not produce effects so long as the interim orders remain valid. However, if a lawsuit is dismissed or rejected, the legal effect of the act will resume.

It is possible for urgent injunction applications to be heard by the judge inaudita altera pars or ex parte, without the opposing party’s involvement. In urgent injunction applications, neither the opposing party nor its attorney is granted the opportunity to file a defense. There is no provision in the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure specifying the term within which a judge should analyze the request for an urgent injunction inaudita altera pars, but it usually takes no longer than 48 hours. Whenever a judge grants an interim relief measure inaudita altera pars, the party against whom the decision was issued can file an appeal within 15 business days of the notification of the judgment to the parties.

The party who requests an urgent interim relief shall be held liable for damages caused to the other party if:

• the final judgment rejects the plaintiff’s claims;
• theplaintiff does not provide the necessary means to serve the respondent within 5 business days of the  granting of the pre-action interim relief;
• the relief becomes ineffective; or
• the judge accepts the respondent’s allegation of statutory limitation period for filing the lawsuit. 

As a general rule, parties seeking interim relief measures must be represented by an attorney, except when such measures are brought by an individual before a Small Claims Court.

Canadian courts have discretion to grant interim relief to parties to a proceeding.  

Such relief can take the form of an injunction (an order requiring a party or a non-party to refrain doing certain acts) or a mandatory order (an order requiring a party or a non-party to perform some particular act). 

Injunctions and mandatory orders can be granted either as interim relief (i.e. before the issues in the proceeding have been finally determined) or as an ultimate remedy. For example, a court could order an interim injunction preventing a defendant from using the plaintiff’s confidential information until the matter is ultimately decided by the court, and then, following the trial of the matter, the court could order a permanent injunction preventing a defendant from ever using the plaintiff’s confidential information. When injunctions and mandatory orders are sought as interim relief, they can be sought after a proceeding is commenced and up until judgment in the proceeding is rendered.

A party seeking interim relief must prove that: 

• there is a serious issue to be tried;
• the party would suffer irreparable harm (i.e. harm not compensable in damages) if the injunction or mandatory order were not granted; and
• the balance of convenience favors the granting of the injunction or mandatory order. 

A party may obtain an interim injunction or mandatory order without notice to, or the involvement of, the other parties where the injunction or mandatory order is urgent, or where providing notice of the motion for an injunction or mandatory order would undermine the purpose of the injunction or mandatory order (as would be the case where the intended injunction seeks to prevent a party from disposing of assets). Any injunction or mandatory order made without notice will generally have a temporal limit: it will only remain extant until such time that the parties receive notice of the injunction or mandatory order, and are given an opportunity to contest the injunction or mandatory order in court. A party seeking an interim injunction or mandatory order will ordinarily be required to give an undertaking to pay any damages suffered by the parties affected by the injunction or mandatory order where:

• the damages are directly related to the interim injunction or mandatory order; and
• the party that obtained the injunction or mandatory order is ultimately unable to prove its claim at trial. 

Typical injunctions or mandatory orders granted by Canadian courts include the following: 

• Mareva orders that prohibit a defendant from disposing of property prior to judgment (see further details in Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders);
• Norwich orders that compel non-parties to provide information to the party seeking the order. The information sought further to a Norwich order may help to identify potential defendants, to find and preserve evidence that may support a claim against known or potential defendants, or to identify assets;
• Anton Piller orders (i.e. civil search warrants) that provide the right to search premises and seize evidence;
• Labor injunctions that restrain unlawful picketing; and
• Injunctions that restrain the continued infringement of intellectual property, or the misuse of confidential information.

A motion for an injunction or mandatory order made without notice to the opposing parties can often be heard by the court within a matter of days. If the party seeking such an injunction or mandatory order is ultimately successful, such that the court issues a temporary or interim injunction or mandatory order, the opposing parties are given the opportunity to have the interim injunction or mandatory order set aside or varied further to a subsequent motion. Such subsequent motions can often be heard within a few weeks of the original interim injunction or mandatory order made without notice (or even sooner than that if the urgency of the situation so dictates).

An injunction or mandatory order that is made on notice (i.e. because it is not urgent, or because providing notice of the motion for the injunction or mandatory order would not undermine the purpose of the injunction or mandatory order itself) can often be heard within one to three months (depending on the complexity of the factual and legal issues relating to the motion for the injunction or mandatory order). 

Other forms of common interim relief include the following: 

• an order relaxing the rules related to the service of court documents;
• an order striking out those portions of a pleading or an affidavit that make allegations that are frivolous or vexatious;
• an order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation that is registered on title to property and therefore puts prospective purchasers, mortgagees, etc., on notice that there is an ongoing lawsuit relating to the property in question;
• an order setting a timetable for the litigation, or requiring a party to comply with a timetable;
• an order requiring a party to produce relevant documents;
• an order requiring a party to answer a question that the party refused to answer on an examination for discovery; and
• an order requiring a plaintiff to pay money into court.

An appeal of an order made on a motion for interim relief must generally be commenced within ten days of the date of the order. 

Generally, individuals may, as of right, represent themselves on motions for interim relief. On a motion for interim relief, a corporation typically must be represented by a lawyer (which includes an in-house lawyer) unless the corporation obtains leave of the court to represent itself (e.g. to be represented by an officer, director, or shareholder of the corporation).

The Chilean regulation states that the plaintiff may request the following interim relief measures:

• Judicial restraint of the asset or object on which the claim is based, if there are grounds to suspect the asset or object could deteriorate or be lost;
• Appointment of a controller or guardian;
• Retention of goods or assets, when there are grounds to suspect its diversion, destruction or concealment;
• Prohibition to sign contracts or other agreements regarding designated assets; or
• Other measures requested by the plaintiff and granted by the court.

For these measures to be granted by the Court the plaintiff must fulfil the following requirements:

• File documents that constitute a serious presumption of the right that the plaintiff claims (Fumus Boni Iuris);
• State an irreparable harm or danger that a party may suffer should the relief not be granted before the end of the proceedings (Periculum in Mora).

All interim reliefs will be granted on the assets or goods that suffice to fulfil the specific amount the plaintiff is claiming, which will be determined by considering the documents the plaintiff has produced. In urgent and severe cases, the Court could grant an interim relief for a maximum period of 10 days without such documents and if the plaintiff warrants any potential liability.

As per this requirement, all interim reliefs are essentially temporary and could be overridden if the counterparty files a warranty or if the potential risk is no longer as insurmountable.

Interim relief measures can be sought at any time: before proceedings have commenced, during the proceedings and afterwards, while pending execution of the judgment. In any case, the alleged right may be challenged at a later stage in the proceedings.

In urgent cases, an interim relief may be sought without the opposing party’s involvement. If the Court concedes the relief, the plaintiff must serve the decision to the defendant within a five day period, which the court could extend to a longer period with sufficient grounds. If the defendant is not served in this period, the relief will have no effect.

Under the law of the PRC, interim relief is mainly granted for evidence preservation, asset preservation, specific performance or advance execution. However, specific laws also provide for other special types of interim relief. For example, the PRC Special Maritime Procedure Law provides certain types of interim relief applicable to maritime claims.

Interim relief can be granted ex parte (i.e. without notice and not in the presence of the parties) before or during a litigation or arbitration. The applicant will usually be required to file a written application with supporting documents to the competent court, but the specific procedure depends on the type of interim relief that a party is seeking to obtain. For instance, a detailed outline of the procedure for an application for an asset preservation order is provided in prejudgment attachments and freezing orders.

Interim relief is generally only granted before the commencement of court proceedings or an arbitration in circumstances where the evidence or property at stake would be irreparably damaged without the interim relief being granted. Before interim relief is granted by the court, the applicant is usually required to provide security. Generally, the court shall make a decision about whether or not to grant interim relief within five days of accepting the application or after security has been provided. In urgent circumstances, the court must make the decision within 48 hours. Once pre-action interim relief is granted, the applicant is required to commence arbitration or court proceedings within 30 days from the date of enforcement of the interim relief order. If this deadline is not complied with, the court may revoke the pre-action interim relief. Representation by a lawyer is not mandatory for interim relief applications.

Should any party in the proceedings wish to challenge the interim relief order, they can apply to the court for reconsideration within five days of receipt of the ruling, and the court must then review and decide the reconsideration application within ten days of receiving it. Enforcement of the interim relief order is not suspended during the reconsideration process.

It is worth noting that on 1 October 2019, the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings between Hong Kong and Mainland China (Arrangement) came into force, pursuant to which parties to certain institutional arbitrations seated in Hong Kong are entitled to apply through those institutions for interim relief from the People’s Courts in Mainland China. The Arrangement makes Hong Kong the first and only seat of arbitration outside of Mainland China to have access to interim relief from the People’s Courts in Mainland China.

The Danish judicial procedures provide tools to obtain interim relief.

A party can file a request for an interim prohibitory or mandatory injunction order to impose interim relief on the opposing party on a short-term basis. Interim relief measures are often aimed at:

• requiring parties to promptly perform certain acts; or
• prohibiting parties from carrying out certain acts.

Any application for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction must be submitted to the court which has subject-matter jurisdiction. The court may, by way of a prohibitory or mandatory injunction, order the opposing party to temporarily do, refrain from doing or tolerate certain actions.

If the purpose of interim relief is to obtain security for the payment of a monetary claim, an application to this effect must be filed and heard under specific provisions regarding attachment, see further (Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders).

If the purpose of interim relief is to preserve evidence e.g. of an infringement of intellectual property rights, an application to this effect must be filed and heard under separate provisions relating to preservation of evidence.

An application for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction must satisfy the same requirements as those that apply to the contents of a writ of summons. A prohibitory or mandatory injunction may be granted if the applying party proves, on a balance of probabilities or by clear and convincing evidence:

• that the party holds the right for which protection by way of a prohibitory or mandatory injunction is sought;
• that the conduct of the opposing party necessitates the granting of the injunction; and
• that the ability of the party to enforce his right will be lost if the party has to await a full trial.

A prohibitory or mandatory injunction may not be granted if the general provisions of the Danish Administration of Justice Act regarding penalty and compensation and any security offered by the opposing party are deemed to provide adequate protection to the party.

Furthermore, the court may refuse to grant a prohibitory or mandatory injunction if such injunction would cause the opposing party to suffer a detriment or disadvantage, such detriment or disadvantage being clearly disproportionate to the applicant’s interest in obtaining the injunction.

The court may decide that the granting of a prohibitory or mandatory injunction is to be conditional on the applicant providing security for any detriment and disadvantage inflicted on the opposing party, as a result of the injunction.

The application for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction is heard at a court hearing where the necessary evidence must be produced. The court will set the time and place of the hearing and notify the requesting party - and where possible, the opposing party - of the scheduled details. Notification may be made by a summons. The court can decide to not notify a party however, e.g. if the purpose of the injunction may be deemed to be lost in case of notification.

If the requesting party fails to attend the hearing, the application will be denied. If the opposing party does not attend, the application may be granted if it is sufficiently justified by the statement of facts and any other information available to the court and the party has been duly summoned or notification has been omitted. The court may postpone the hearing if the court finds the responding party's attendance desirable.

If proceedings concerning the right which is allegedly being infringed have not already been commenced in a Danish or foreign court or before an arbitral tribunal, the party applying for a prohibitory or mandatory injunction must take or commence such proceedings within two weeks of the decision to grant the injunction becoming final.

If the proceedings are commenced in a Danish court, the proceedings must be commenced either in the court which heard the application for the injunction in the first instance or the Maritime and Commercial Court.

Such proceedings may be dispensed with by agreement between the parties. Such agreement cannot be concluded until a final decision to grant a prohibitory or mandatory injunction is available.

A prohibitory or mandatory injunction applies until it is discharged or ceases to have effect.

A district court's decisions relating to prohibitory and mandatory injunctions can be appealed by both parties. The period allowed for appeal is four weeks from the date of the decision. The appeal does not have a suspensive effect on the decisions regarding prohibitory and mandatory injunctions.

Cases regarding interim relief are naturally more urgent than regular civil cases, and therefore, the courts will handle them expeditiously. There is no specific timeframe prescribed by law, but typically, a ruling can be issued at the latest within four to six months after the submission of the request.

If the court grants a prohibitory or mandatory injunction, the court may, if requested by the applicant party, decide at the same time to seize movable property if there are specific reasons to assume that it will be used in breach of the injunction. If the court finds that the application for a seizure order should be heard separately, the court may transfer the issue to a separate hearing in bailiff court, as set out below in Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders.

The bailiff court will assist in securing that interim relief orders are upheld, as set out below in Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders.

Any party that obtains a prohibitory or mandatory injunction based on a right which is later held not to exist must compensate the opposing party for any loss and / or injury to such party's reputation or feelings. The same applies where, if the right must be assumed not to have existed, the injunction ceases to have effect or is discharged on account of subsequent circumstances.

It is possible to apply for an interim measure before the initiation of or during the civil court proceedings. The statutory purpose of an interim measure is either to provisionally regulate the relations between the parties if necessary, or to protect the enforcement of a future judgment.

In practice, interim measures are most often used to freeze assets. They can also be used to order certain conduct or, conversely, to prohibit certain conduct (for example, prohibiting the set-off of claims, convening general meetings or acting for the company in certain matters). The freezing of assets may concern any property that Czech law recognizes as an object of legal relations (real estate, movable property, securities, shares in companies, rights and claims, etc.).

The application for an interim measure shall be lodged with the same court which has jurisdiction on the merits. The court shall decide on the application without delay. If there is no risk of delay, the court may decide up to seven days after the application has been made. The decision on the interim measure shall be made without a hearing and on an ex parte basis.

In the application for an interim measure, the claimant must certify that he or she has a claim on the merits. Certification means that it is not necessary to prove the claim, but it is sufficient to evidence its existence and legitimacy in some basic manner. The application must also demonstrate that the relevant interim measure is necessary to provisionally regulate the relations between the parties or that there is concern that the enforcement of the (future) judgment would be jeopardised. Finally, the application should include an explanation that the interim measure will be proportionate.

Together with the application, it is mandatory to lodge a security deposit for compensation for potential damage caused by the interim measure. The amount of the security deposit is CZK10,000 (civil matters), CZK50,000 (commercial matters) or more if the judge considers it appropriate under the given circumstances.

A decision on an interim measure shall be immediately enforceable by its promulgation and, if not promulgated, by its service. Violation of an interim measure may result in criminal liability. Interim measures are enforced in the same way as any other court decisions, for example, the freezing of assets is marked in public registers (or notified to the banks), and other obligations may be enforced by a court bailiff if not fulfilled. Generally, any legal acts conducted by an obliged entity contrary to an interim measure are deemed void.

An appeal against a decision on an interim measure is possible. The appeal procedure is identical to an appeal against a decision on merits. However, because the interim measure is immediately enforceable, the appeal does not suspend its effect. Due to the fact that the courts of appeal normally decide on interim measure appeals without a hearing, the appeal proceedings tend to be shorter in length (usually one to three months).

If the interim measure ordered has lapsed or has been revoked for any reason other than because the claim on the merits has been adjudicated or because the claimant's right has been satisfied, the claimant shall be liable for the damages caused by the interim measure. This is liability to any person to whom damage has been caused (i.e. not only to the defendant).

A special type of interim measure is the so-called “preservation of evidence”, which addresses situations where there is a concern that a particular piece of evidence will not be able to be produced in the future or may be produced but with major difficulties

All Finnish courts have the power to grant interim relief and it is not mandatory to use an attorney or counsel when applying for the interim relief. Interim relief measures are usually meant to secure the object of the dispute before the resolution of the proceedings, or to prevent the defendant from dissipating its assets. The application for interim relief may be sought before or during court proceedings.

Common interim relief applications in Finland include applications to attach property, shares and/or receivables of the defendant (for further details please see Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders); prohibit the defendant from acting in a certain manner; order the defendant (or allow the applicant) to do something; or order other measures necessary to secure the applicant's right. In intellectual property matters, the court may be requested to issue a prejudgment attachment order in order to secure evidence before filing the claim on the merits.

Obtaining an interim relief judgment can be a relatively quick procedure. Usually, applications for interim relief will be made on notice, and the opposing party has the right to be heard. However, in cases of urgency, or in order to prevent the subject matter of the claim from being compromised, the application may be made ex parte. If the court considers that there are grounds to grant interim relief, namely: (i) the claimant has a prima facie right; and (ii) there is a risk of irreparable harm if the interim relief sought is not granted, the decision may be obtained in a few days. However, very urgent ex parte applications may be resolved by the court on an even shorter timeframe, including on the day of the application.

If the court grants the relief sought, the applicant can seek to enforce the relief order using the enforcement authorities. Before enforcement, a party seeking relief will, as a general rule, be obliged to provide security for any loss which the defendant may incur as a result of the relief.

The justification for the interim relief will be decided together with the court's decision on the merits. A party who has unnecessarily applied for interim relief is liable to compensate the opposing party for the damage caused by the measure and its enforcement, and to cover any expenses incurred in relation to it.

An interim relief order can usually be appealed separately. Such an appeal takes approximately two to three months to be resolved by the Upper Court. The appeal doesn’t suspend the effect of the interim relief measure unless the court handling the appeal decides that it will do so.

The French Code of Civil Procedure provides for various kinds of expedited interim relief proceedings. Representation by an attorney is not mandatory in interim relief proceedings.

The interim relief judge (juge des référés) can order any precautionary, restorative or expert measures to stop an obvious unlawful disorder, prevent either immediate damage or irreparable loss and/or to safeguard the rights of the claimant. The interim relief judge can also order the payment of a debt when there are no serious grounds to challenge it, in which case it is an interim payment. Applications for interim relief may be sought before or pending a resolution of the merits.

Interim relief proceedings start with obtaining a date for the hearing with the interim relief judge (juge des référés). The hearing can take place at short notice, ranging from hours to a couple of months depending on the level of urgency. The judge must ensure that, based on the circumstances of the matter, the defendant has had sufficient time between the time of service of the summons and the hearing to prepare its defense. At the oral hearing, both parties can elaborate on their respective positions. The timeframe between the hearing and the order depends on the urgency of the matter.

To obtain interlocutory measures, applicants must demonstrate that:

• the relief sought must be granted as a matter of urgency; or
• there are no serious grounds to challenge the applicant's claim.

A party may appeal against an interim relief order within 15 days of the order. As a general rule, the interim order relief order is enforceable by law and the appeal does not suspend the effect of an interim relief measure.

In Germany, there are two types of interim relief, namely (i) freezing orders (Arrest) (section 916 ZPO seqq.) and (ii) preliminary injunctions (Einstweilige Verfügung) (section 935 ZPO seqq.). Further details of these are set out under the heading “Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders” below.

Freezing orders and preliminary injunctions can be issued within a short time period, i.e.  a week. The opposing party can appeal against a freezing order or preliminary injunction, and such appellate proceedings will generally last for over a month before the appellate court will issue a decision. Legal representation in interim relief proceedings is mandatory in all courts apart from the Local Courts (Amtsgerichte).

The courts have wide powers and discretion to grant interim relief to parties in the proceedings. As in ordinary proceedings, legal representation in interim relief proceedings is not mandatory. The most common interim relief applications by far are for interlocutory injunctions to restrain the commission of any particular act by the respondent until trial or a further order of the court discharging the injunction in question.

An interlocutory injunction may be made on an urgent ex parte basis immediately prior to the formal commencement of the legal action.

In brief, an application for interlocutory injunction may be made to restrain the commission of an allegedly wrongful act by the respondent when:

• there is a serious issue to be tried (ie the claim has some expectation of success and is not a merely fanciful one);
• monetary compensation given at trial for the allegedly wrongful act would not be an adequate remedy for the applicant;
• the applicant is able to compensate the respondent and other affected parties for losses and damage arising from the granting of the injunctive relief if ordered by the court to do so subsequently; and
• the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. In deciding where the balance of convenience lies, the court will take into account all relevant circumstances of the case.

In appropriate circumstances, an application for interlocutory injunction may be made on an urgent ex parte basis (ie without giving notice to any of the other parties in the action) at the same time or immediately prior to the formal commencement of legal action. Such ex parte hearings are heard by the court as soon as possible, usually on the same day the application papers are filed with the court. If a party applies for an interlocutory injunction before an action is commenced, the injunction applied for will be granted by the court with a condition requiring the party to issue a writ of summons immediately or as soon as reasonably practical.

An application for interlocutory injunction is usually supported by the applicant’s affidavit evidence. In an ex parte application, the applicant has a strict duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts (even those unhelpful to their case) to the court.

Other interim remedies available include but are not limited to the following:

• Security for costs: Where the claimant resides/is incorporated outside of Hong Kong, a party can make an application for the claimant to pay a specified sum into court to meet any order for legal costs made at the trial.
• Interim payments: The general purpose of an interim payment is to reduce monetary hardship or prejudice that the claimant may suffer leading up to the trial. Where the defendant has already admitted liability or it is clear that, if the matter proceeds to trial, the claimant would obtain judgment for substantial compensation against the defendant, the court can require the defendant to make an advance payment to the claimant.
• Anton Piller orders: In order to prevent a defendant from destroying important documents/information, the court can grant an order which permits the claimant’s representative to enter the defendant’exs premises to search for and seize certain documents which are relevant to the case.
• Appointment of receivers: A party in a dispute over the validity of the board of directors’ appointments of a company and/or the ownership of the controlling stake in a company may apply for the appointment of receivers to the company to take over control of the management until determination of the dispute by the court. The court may appoint receivers to the company if it is just and convenient to do so having regard to all the relevant circumstances.

It is rare for interim injunctive reliefs to be appealed. Normally, if the aggrieved party disagrees with the interim injunctive relief granted by the judge, it will make an application to have it discharged. For interim injunctive relief obtained by the applicant on an ex parte basis, an aggrieved party may make a discharge application at the return day hearing. The return day hearing is typically held within a week of the hearing at which such interim injunctive relief was granted by the court and its purpose is to provide an opportunity for the parties affected by the interim injunctive relief to make submissions to the court and for the court to decide whether the interim injunction should continue.

If no discharge application is made at the return day hearing or if there is no return day hearing because the application for interim injunctive relieve was not made on an ex parte basis, an aggrieved party may make an application to discharge the interim injunctive relief at any time. Such application will normally be heard by the court within three to six months and the court usually decides on the application within two to three months of the conclusion of the hearing.

Appeals against interim remedies other than injunctive relief are usually heard by the court within three to six months, and decided within three to six months. Timeframes for the handing down of appeal decisions may vary greatly and would be affected by factors such as how busy the court hearing the appeal is and the complexity of the case.

Interim relief is essentially a measure ordered by the court temporarily granting (i) the relief sought by the claimant in its statement of claim, or (ii) a measure aimed at avoiding further damage or preserving the status quo. The exact content of the relief is always determined by the underlying substantive law to be applied to the present dispute. Hungarian courts may provide a wide range of interim relief on a party's or prospective party's application. Interim relief applications are common in intellectual property disputes (e.g. applications to temporarily restrain the defendant from using a trademark), and in commercial disputes (e.g. applications to temporarily suspend a payment obligation, when the dispute concerns the validity of that obligation).

Parties or prospective parties can apply for interim relief before and after filing the statement of claim. From a procedural point of view, interim relief may be granted if:

• it is deemed necessary to prevent any imminent threat of damage to the requesting party, or preserve the status quo of the subject of the dispute, or with a view to providing special protection of certain rights; and
• if the advantages of granting the relief sought outweigh the disadvantage that may be suffered by the granting of the relief.

Additionally, the party or prospective party seeking interim relief is only required to prove that the underlying facts are probable. Evidence is not required at this stage. The court may also order the requesting party to provide some security before granting the interim relief.

The court decides on the interim relief request in an expedited procedure, in which the court has to take action within eight days following the receipt of the application. Relief is granted by way of a court order, which is immediately executable upon its communication. This also means that an appeal against the respective order has no suspensory effect on the execution of the interim relief.

In Hungary, interim relief is not an ex parte procedure; the court consults both parties before granting the relief, unless the case is extraordinary. Since the interim relief procedure is part of the litigation and not a separate procedure, the general rules of mandatory legal representation apply here as well (i.e. legal representation is not mandatory before the District Court and before the General Court on appeal, but in all other cases it is). The period for which the interim relief is ordered is indefinite, but it ends when the first instance judgment becomes final, at the latest. The court may, on request, withdraw or modify the relief if the underlying facts or circumstances change.

Exceptionally, interim relief may also be requested before filing the statement of claim, if, based on the information provided by the applicant, the court considers it likely that the interim relief must be ordered immediately, because by the time a claim is filed, it will be too late to protect the applicant’s rights or interests. Where such early interim relief is ordered, the court sets a deadline no longer than 45 days, within which the statement of claim has to be filed. If the claim is not filed within this timeframe, the interim relief terminates. The request for this early interim relief must be filed in the court which will have jurisdiction for the substantive litigation. This means that if legal representation is mandatory before such a court for the litigation, then it is mandatory for filing this request too.

Italian law provides for, and clearly defines, different kinds of interim measures. They include:

• protective measures, which are sought pre-action, and are temporary in nature such that they need to be confirmed or revoked by the final judgment; and
• anticipatory measures, which remain effective even if they are not followed by an action on the merits.

Parties may seek interim relief measures both during the proceedings and prior to their commencement. Where a protective interim relief measure is granted before the commencement of the proceedings, the claimant must commence an action on the merits within the timeframe set by the judge, which shall not exceed 60 days from the adoption of the interim measure. Otherwise, the interim measure becomes ineffective.

An interim measure may be granted after a brief and concise evaluation of the case, which takes place during a hearing in which both parties are invited to participate. Generally, an interim measure will be granted where the claimant proves the presence of the following two conditions:

• the fumus boni iuris, that is a prima facie case of the right claimed; and
• the periculum in mora, that is a well founded risk that the right which the interim measure seeks to safeguard may be irreparably harmed whilst the dispute is pending.

In some cases, the court may provisionally decide interim relief requests without holding any hearing and so without involving the defendant (i.e. ex parte). In these cases, the courts would then re-establish the necessary dialogue (and due process) with both parties in a second phase after the interim measure is rendered. In this second phase, a hearing will be scheduled within 15 days of the interim measure order being granted, and the claimant must serve the defendant with the request and order of appearance within eight days of the order. These timeframes are tripled in cases where service is required to be made abroad. Once the other party is involved and heard, the measure will be: (i) confirmed; (ii) modified; or (iii) revoked.

The duration of interim relief proceedings varies depending on the measure requested and on the specificities of each case. The timeframe can range from approximately one to 18 months. However, where the proceedings are ex parte, the judge may take just a couple of days to order the relief.

The order granted pursuant to an interim relief application can be appealed within 15 days from either (i) the date of the hearing at which the order was rendered, or (ii) when the order was communicated or served to the party, whichever is the earlier.

No other quick or informal ways to obtain an interim relief judgment exist in Italy. Parties must be represented by an attorney during such proceedings.

The Italian Code lists three typical and one general interim measure. The three typical interim measures are:

Seizure (sequestro): This normally will involve either:

• a judicial attachment which may be used on (i) movable or immovable assets when the relevant ownership is in dispute, or (ii) documents (a) from which evidentiary elements can be taken, (b) when the right of exhibiting them is controverted, and (c) it is necessary to store them temporarily - Sequestro Giudiziario; or
• a preservation order which may be issued on any asset of the debtor, in circumstances where there are grounds to believe that the debtor might deplete such assets to the creditor's detriment - Sequestro Conservativo. Further details on seizure are set out in Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders.

Denouncement of new work and feared damages: As to the former, a party who has grounds to fear that its ownership, rights in rem or possession over land will suffer imminent damage as a result of new work commenced by a third party can denounce such new work, and ask the court to issue an order preventing the work from continuing or otherwise addressing the applicant's concerns. Equally, when the grounds to fear imminent damage is due to a building, tree or another dominant item, the applicant may request the court to grant an order that seeks to eliminate the risk of such damage; and

Measures of preventive investigation: These measures can be ordered by the court prior to the commencement of the main proceedings. They are aimed at securing evidence in advance, thereby avoiding the risk of such evidence subsequently becoming unavailable. Typical preventive investigation measures include: (i) examination of witnesses when there are grounds to believe that such witnesses will not be available at the hearing due to a terminal illness, (ii) inspection of objects or places, and (iii) technical examination.

The two most commonly used measures are seizure and the procedures of preventive investigation.

If a situation cannot be remedied by the usual interim measures provided for by law, it is possible to request a general remedy (Article 700 of the Italian Code). The party wishing to apply for such a general remedy must follow the same procedure and satisfy the same requirements as for the typical interim relief measures. The content of such a general remedy is established by the court on a case-by-case basis according to the precautionary need which must be met.

Interim relief is available to parties if there is an urgent need to protect their legal rights (either by preserving the status quo or preventing a party from taking certain actions).

Most injunction applications are made either in the Circuit Court or in the High Court (depending on the case). Applications for interim relief are typically sought on an urgent, time-sensitive basis and are made ex parte (i.e. without notice to the other side).

The criterion for obtaining interim relief varies depending on the type of relief sought, but the overarching principles the court will consider for an interim/interlocutory injunction will include:

• whether there is a serious/fair issue to be tried;
• whether damages would be an adequate remedy; and
• whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction.

The applicant must also give an “undertaking as to damages” (i.e. an undertaking to the court that any losses suffered by the respondent as a result of injunction will be paid by the applicant if the applicant later fails in its case at trial).

There are various types of injunction which can be sought:

• Interim injunctions - in cases of great urgency on an “ex parte” basis. Interim injunctions will usually be limited for a short period (usually a number of days) until an application for an interlocutory injunction (on notice to the other party) can be heard. The applicant must give full and frank disclosure of all relevant facts for “ex parte” applications;
• Interlocutory injunction - this can be to seek the continuation of an interim order which has been made, or a party might apply directly for an interlocutory injunction if matters are less urgent and proceedings are ongoing (but not yet concluded) and the injunction is required to protect the status quo until matters are determined fully at trial;
• Quia timet injunction - where a wrongful act is threatened or anticipated but has not actually occurred and the injunction is required to prohibit this act;
• Anti-suit injunction -when a case is pending or threatened in another jurisdiction and it would be unjust for this to proceed, this injunction will prohibit a party from bringing the case in that foreign jurisdiction;
• Mareva injunction - where there is a concern that a defendant might remove, conceal or dissipate assets, this injunction is sought to prevent a defendant from dissipating assets below a specified amount; and
• Anton Piller injunction - to protect evidence, this injunction entitles a plaintiff to enter the defendant's premises to inspect and potentially seize evidence.

A decision to make or refuse an order for interim relief can be appealed by either party to the High Court or Court of Appeal (depending on which court made or refused the order). An appeal will not automatically suspend or stay the order being appealed, but a stay can be ordered by the court pending the appeal. The timeline for appealing a decision to make or refuse an order is the same as other appeals (i.e. within 28 days following “perfection” of the court order).

Legal representation is not mandatory to seek, or resist, interim relief. However, given the potential complexity and the legal tests to be met, it is generally the case that both parties will be legally represented.

Japanese courts can grant interim relief to protect property and secure the enforceability of the judgment. The following forms of interim relief are available in Japan:

• an order of provisional attachment available to potential plaintiffs (creditors) who wish to freeze the potential defendant's (debtor's) assets to secure collection of their monetary claims;
• a provisional order (referred to in Japan as provisional disposition), which is used to preserve disputed property in certain types of non-monetary claims; and
• a provisional disposition to establish an interim legal relationship between the parties to avoid substantial detriment or imminent danger caused by the disputed relationship.

Further detail on the first two types of interim relief can be found in the paragraph on Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders.

In relation to the provisional disposition to establish an interim legal relationship, an obligee can file a petition with the district court to prove a legal relationship with obligor. The petition must have either (a) jurisdiction over the merits of the case; or (b) jurisdiction over the location of the disputed subject matter. An obligee can request this measure until a judgment on the merits has become final and binding (i.e. an obligee is able to request provisional relief even in second instance). A party is not obliged to be represented by an attorney. In other words, a party is allowed to initiate or respond to a petition for provisional relief without appointing an attorney.

As to the criteria to obtain such provisional disposition, in order to be successful, the applicant must establish that there is a prima facie case that (i) the disputed legal relationship exists; and (ii) an order is required to avoid substantial detriment or imminent danger to the petitioner. Before granting this type of relief, the court will usually convene a hearing to hear both parties' positions.

The timeframe to resolve applications to determine a provisional legal status is generally between one and four weeks from the application being filed to the remedy being awarded. An obligee may file an appeal against a judicial decision to dismiss a petition for an order for a provisional relief within an unextendable period of two weeks from the day on which the obligee was notified of such decision. Where the court dismisses the appeal for provisional relief, no further appeal may be filed against such judicial decision. On the other hand, where the court issues an order for provisional relief, the obligor may (at any time) file an objection to the order with the court which issued the order.

In addition to the above interim relief measures, in some cases, it is also possible to obtain an interim judgment, which will settle certain matters that are ripe for determination before the final judgment. An interim judgment will be binding on the court that issued it, but it cannot be appealed or enforced by the parties. Japanese law does not establish a procedure for obtaining such judgment. Japanese courts can, in their discretion, issue an interim judgment on part of the dispute before rendering a final judgment providing both of the following conditions are satisfied: (i) the element of the dispute subject to the interim judgment is independent from the main matter in dispute, and (ii) it is feasible to give judgment on that element. In addition, the interim judgment is also available when issues of liability and quantum can be determined separately, and the court considers that liability should be determined first. An interim judgment can be useful, particularly in large or complex disputes, to reduce the number of disputed issues in subsequent proceedings. However, interim judgments are rare in practice.

Interim relief may be granted ex parte in some instances. For example, the court need not hear the opposing party in a proceeding that requires secrecy, as in an asset freeze case. However, in a provisional disposition to establish an interim legal relationship between the parties to avoid substantial detriment or imminent danger caused by the disputed relationship, the court must hold a hearing and grant the opposing party an opportunity to submit their arguments.

Interim relief measures should be obtained before, during and/or after proceedings on the merits of the main proceedings. Interim relief measures must be filed by the creditor as a plaintiff within a certain period of time (specified by the court, not less than two weeks) after the interim relief measures have been issued. If the creditor does not file the main action, the court may withdraw the interim relief measures upon motion of the debtor.

The creditor can appeal to a higher court if its request for interim relief measures was declined. The creditor has to submit an appeal within 2 weeks after being notified that the court declined its original request for interim relief measures.

The debtor has an opportunity to challenge the order of the interim relief measures. The court that ordered the interim relief measures will examine the challenge and hold a hearing with both parties. It may take over one month until the court delivers a decision. Both parties can appeal to a higher court on the court’s decision of the challenge. The party has to submit an appeal within 2 weeks after receiving service of declining its challenge for interim relief measures. A challenge/appeal does not automatically suspend the enforceability of the interim relief measures. A separate petition to suspend enforcement must be filed.

The Luxembourg Code of Civil Procedure offers various types of expedited interim relief proceedings. Here, representation by an attorney is not mandatory (as applications for interim relief are disposed of by way of oral proceedings).

The interim relief judge (juge des référés) has the authority to issue precautionary, restorative, or expert measures to prevent immediate damage or irreparable loss and to protect the rights of the claimant. Additionally, the interim relief judge may order the payment of a debt when there are no substantial grounds to dispute it. Interim relief applications can be made before or during the main proceedings, but they are usually sought prior to initiating a substantive legal action. Interim relief can be granted ex parte, but only in circumstances permitted by law or of extreme necessity and urgency.

The procedure for obtaining interim relief is initiated by serving a writ of summons requiring the defendant to appear at an oral hearing on a scheduled date. Although legal representation is not mandatory, parties are strongly recommended to appoint a lawyer. Depending on the urgency, the interim relief hearing can take place within a short period - ranging from hours to a few months. The judge must ensure that the defendant has sufficient time between the service of the summons and the hearing to prepare their defense. During the oral hearing, both parties can present their respective positions.

The time taken by the court to grant interim relief varies depending on the urgency of the matter.

To obtain interim measures, applicants must demonstrate either the urgent need for the relief requested or the absence of serious grounds to challenge the applicant's claim. A party affected by the order can appeal against an interim relief order within 15 days of receiving the order. However, an appeal against interim relief will not ordinarily suspend its effect.

Interim and / or precautionary measures are equitable remedies that are at the discretion of a Kuwaiti court and may not be available in all circumstances, in particular, where damages are considered an adequate remedy. In limited circumstances, Kuwaiti courts may grant interim relief which is akin to a form of injunctive relief. For example, the courts may issue a temporary and precautionary attachment order over assets (for further detail see Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders), issue travel bans and grant freezing orders to prevent a party from dissipating or removing its assets from the jurisdiction. However, Kuwaiti courts will not issue prohibitory injunctions, such as anti-suit injunctions, as these are not recognized legal concepts in Kuwait. The most common matters for which interim relief applications are sought include seeking stay on the execution of the court of appeal judgment, or for the determination of facts, for example stopping construction until determination of true ownership, etc.

To obtain injunctive relief, an applicant will have to submit a petition requesting injunctive relief at any stage of the matter depending upon the circumstances, but usually it is in the beginning of the case. Representation by an attorney is not mandatory. The judge of the Provisional or Interim Proceedings Court should rule on the petition within a week. If necessary, the judge is able to demand that the parties appear before the court within 24 hours of the submission of the petition. In order to grant relief the judge must be satisfied that the remedy being sought by the petitioner is in fact of a provisional nature, or that the remedy sought may be irreversibly lost unless the court intervenes urgently. The judge will not grant relief where the petitioner seeks a substantive review of the matter.

Provisional orders granted by way of interim relief may be appealed to the Court of First Instance within 15 days of issuance. If there are already related proceedings pending before a court, the appeal must be taken to that court.

Precautionary measures necessary to preserve the status quo may be granted by the courts prior or during the trial. Such measures shall be ordered without hearing the opposing party and shall not be subject to appeal. An appeal may be lodged against an order refusing such measures.

The Netherlands has a quick, informal procedure for obtaining an interim relief judgment. Before the court decides on the main proceedings, by seeking interim relief, claimants are able to request the judge to impose interim relief on a short-term basis in cases of urgency. Interim relief measures are often aimed at: (i) requiring parties to promptly perform certain acts; or (ii) prohibiting parties from carrying out certain acts. Common examples are the request to suspend a contested decision with immediate effect until appeal proceedings on the main issue have concluded, and the request to immediately lift (prejudgment) attachments on certain goods and/or bank accounts.

Interim relief can be sought before and during the (main) proceedings, as well as after a judgment has been rendered in the main proceedings. However, an interim relief judge must align his judgment with the (probable) judgment in the main proceedings.

Interim relief proceedings start with obtaining a date for the hearing with the interim relief judge. Usually, a hearing takes place within one to three weeks, although much shorter time frames are possible in urgent cases (even within a matter of hours). A writ of summons needs to be served by a bailiff, who is allowed one week to serve, although this time frame can also be reduced by the interim relief judge. At the oral hearing, both parties can elaborate on their position. For the defendant, representation by an attorney is optional, but for the claimant it is mandatory. After the hearing, the interim relief judge will usually issue the interim relief judgment within a week, though this could also be done faster when immediate action is required. Appealing against an interim relief judgment is possible within four weeks.

The judge in interim relief proceedings does not examine the underlying claim in detail. When the request for interim relief relates to a claim that appears to be complex, the judge will be unlikely to allow the request for interim relief to proceed. Likewise, the interim relief judge will only allow requests for interim relief when claimants demonstrate that they have an urgent interest that requires prompt intervention. In other words, requests for interim relief in respect of claims that are not urgent or too complex will be rejected and the claimant will be ordered to initiate (main) proceedings in the ordinary way.

Decisions granting interim relief will be provisional in nature, which means that a court decision in interim relief proceedings will not prejudice the rights of parties in ordinary civil proceedings that are pending at the time of the interim relief judgment or that might be initiated thereafter. In practice, however, an injunction or provisional measure can (and may, according to case law of the Dutch Supreme Court) have irreversible consequences, which can only be redressed on appeal. For example, at the request of the claimant, the judge may stipulate in his order that the defendant shall forfeit a penalty for each day that the defendant fails to comply with the measure ordered or injunction, or for each day that the defendant acts in contravention of the decision. If the judgment in the ordinary proceedings is rendered in favor of the payer, the payer's only option to reverse the situation would be to appeal the interim relief measure itself, as the forfeited penalties are not automatically reversed.

Notwithstanding their interim character, interim relief proceedings are not always followed by ordinary civil proceedings. Parties are not obliged to commence the main proceedings; they often accept the interim relief judgment itself and refrain from engaging in further proceedings.

A range of interim remedies is available. Interim remedies are provisional measures generally granted to preserve the status quo or prevent the dissipation of assets. Common applications for interim remedies include:

• interim declarations;
• interim injunctions (injunctions are orders prohibiting a person from doing something or requiring a person to do something);
• orders for the detention, custody, preservation, inspection, and sampling of relevant property;
• sale of relevant property which is of a perishable nature or which for any other good reason it is desirable to sell quickly;
• freezing injunctions;
• search orders;
• orders to provide information about assets;
• injunctions restraining foreign legal proceedings;
• applications for security for costs;
• applications for orders for interim payment on account of any damages, debt or other sum the court may hold the defendant liable to pay;
• applications for further information;
• extensions of time; and
• specific disclosure.

An order for an interim remedy may be made at any time, including before proceedings are started and after judgment has been given. However, the court may only grant an interim remedy before proceedings are started if the matter is urgent or it is otherwise desirable to do so in the interests of justice.

As a general rule, no order should be made in civil proceedings without notice to the other side unless there are good reasons for doing so. An application for interim relief must be supported by affidavit evidence.

In ex parte (i.e. without notice) applications, relief can generally be obtained within a matter of days. If the court grants the ex parte application, the defendant is provided with an opportunity to object to the granting of relief at a subsequent hearing. At this hearing, the defendant would seek to persuade the court that any order made should not be continued.

The criteria for obtaining relief varies depending on the type of relief sought but the overarching principles that the court will consider in relation to interim injunctions include:

• whether there is a serious issue to be tried (the evidence must show that the applying party has a real prospect of succeeding in their claim) and, if so:
  • whether, if the applying party were to be successful at trial, damages would be an adequate remedy; and
  • whether, if the responding party were to be successful at trial, damages under a cross-undertaking to pay damages by the applying party in return for an interim injunction would be an adequate remedy,
• if there is a question as to the adequacy of damages to either or both parties, whether it would be just and reasonable to grant the relief sought.

The parties can appeal the court's decision on the application for interim relief to a higher court within 20 working days, although leave to appeal may be required in some limited circumstances. An appeal won't automatically stay the interim relief. However, a party may apply for a stay of the interim relief pending an appeal.

Norwegian courts have the power to order two broad categories of interim relief in connection with civil proceedings: (i) arrests of goods/attachments; and (ii) interim measures. Arrest of goods requires a monetary claim to be secured (see our comments under “Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders”) while interim measures are available to secure other types of claims. Interim measures include orders compelling the defendant to carry out or refrain from carrying out an act, or directing the defendant to transfer an asset into the custody of, for example, an enforcement officer.

An application for interim measures should be submitted to the District Court in the location where the defendant usually resides or, if the measure relates to property or another asset, where the assets belonging to the defendant are or are expected to arrive in the foreseeable future.

Most of the principles governing the applicability of such relief are equally applicable to attachments and interim measures; the claimant has to prove its substantive claim and a valid ground for security on the balance of probabilities.

Upon application by a party, Norwegian courts may grant such measures in two circumstances. First, interim measures may be available if the defendant’s conduct makes it necessary to provisionally secure the claim because the action or execution of the claim would otherwise be considerably impeded. Second, such measures may be granted to avert considerable loss or inconvenience in connection with a disputed legal issue, or to avert destruction of property which is reasonably feared in view of the defendant’s conduct.

As a condition to granting interim relief, Norwegian courts may order the party requesting such relief to provide security for any compensation that may subsequently be awarded to the other party for any unjustifiable loss it suffers as a result of the relief given.

The timeframe for obtaining interim measures will vary depending on the circumstances. If awaiting a hearing poses a risk, an order can be made without an oral hearing; such an order may be obtained within a day or two following the application. If not, the court will summon the parties to an oral hearing. Depending on the circumstances, the hearing may be held between one and three weeks after the application. The same timeframe would apply to parties affected by an order held without any oral hearing; such parties may require subsequent oral proceedings and the court may uphold, amend or set aside its first decision either in whole or in part.

The court’s decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeal (see our comments as to “appeals” above). Apart from parts of the decision providing for payment of money, interim measures granted by the court may be enforced awaiting the final and binding judgment from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.

Interim relief proceedings are not available in the Omani courts. However, interim relief may be granted by way of a precautionary attachment to freeze the debtor’s assets.

Interim relief measures are provisional measures sought in order to secure the claim at an early stage (i.e. measures which will satisfy an eventual judgment) and are referred to in the CPC as security. In monetary cases, security may involve freezing a bank account, establishing a mortgage over real estate or a registered pledge over equipment and machinery, seizing movable property, or even appointing an administrator for an enterprise, all of which would be in force for the duration of the proceedings. In non-monetary cases, the claimant may demand that the court secure the claim temporarily by governing the relationship between the parties or granting other relief tailored to the circumstances.

A claimant may seek security (i) before legal proceedings are commenced; (ii) when they file the statement of claim, or (iii) when the main proceedings are already underway. In general, the application for security will be filed with:

• the court with jurisdiction to hear the main claim when the application is made pre-action;
• the court hearing the claim when the case is already underway; or
• the court where the interim relief will be executed when the application is made after the judgment has been issued.

The court must examine applications for security immediately and not later than a week after they have been filed with the court. An application which is filed with the court before the statement of claim is submitted will be considered without the defendant being notified (i.e. ex parte). If the claimant is granted security before the litigation has commenced, the court will indicate a two-week deadline to file the statement of claim with the competent court.

The court will grant the security sought if it finds that the claimant has substantiated:

• its claim (i.e. prima facie the claimant has a good claim);
• its legal interest in obtaining security for the claim; and
• that satisfaction of its claim would be hindered if interim relief was not granted.

Legal representation by an attorney is not mandatory in security proceedings. The court fee for a security application is 1/4 of 5% of the value of the case, capped at PLN50,000 (EUR11,200) if it is filed before the judicial proceedings. When a security application is filed together with the statement of claim, there is no separate court fee for the application. The court fee for a security application filed in the course of the proceedings amounts to PLN100 (EUR22,50).

A defendant against whom security has been granted, may file an appeal within seven days of receipt of the judgment. An appeal does not suspend the effects of the judgment.

If the court does not grant relief, the claimant may also challenge the court’s decision and file an appeal within seven days from the delivery of the judgment.

Portuguese law provides for, and clearly defines, different kinds of interim measures. They include:

• Provisional measures, which are intended to maintain an existing situation unaltered and avoid prejudicial mutations; and
• Conservatory measures, which are intended to anticipate the decision that the Court will issue in the principal case, to ascertain the applicant’s threatened rights.

The Court can issue an interim measure only if the applicant provides evidence that:

• there is strong prima facie case that the right it claims exists (fumus boni iuris);
• the respondent has breached such right or is on the verge of doing so;
• such breach is likely to cause irreparable harm, or harm which is not easily remediable;
• there is urgency (periculum in mora); and
• the relief sought is proportionate to the detriment of the respondent.

In addition to the general interim relief proceedings, the Civil Code prescribes the following specific interim measures:

• Provisional reversion of possession;
• Suspension of company resolutions;
• Temporary alimony;
• Arbitration of provisional compensation;
• Seizure;
• Embargo on new work; and/or
• Enrolment.

In some cases, the Court may provisionally decide on interim relief requests without holding any hearing and therefore without involving the respondent, i.e. ex parte. In such cases, the courts would re-establish the necessary dialogue (and due process) with both parties in a second phase after the interim measure is rendered. In this second phase, a hearing will be scheduled within 15 days after the order whereby the interim measure is issued. If the respondent files a response, the interim measure will be decided within two months, although in practice, it may take much longer).

All interim relief proceedings are dependent on the respective main proceedings, in which a final decision regarding the initial issues will be made. Following procedural reforms in 2013, it is possible to request the “reversal of the litigation” (“inversão do contencioso”), which means that the main issues can be decided within the interim relief proceedings and, if granted, the claimant would not have to file the main action.

The procedural timings vary depending on the measure requested and on the specificities of each case, but ranges from approximately two to 18 months. However, where the proceedings are ex parte (only admissible for cases of embargo on new work), the judge may take just a couple of days to order the relief.

A party can appeal the order granted pursuant to an interim relief application within 15 days of the communication or service of the order granted. Just as for general appeals, an appeal of an interim relief order does not have suspensory effect unless ordered by the court.

When there is a judicial seizure of assets, an enforcement agent (suggested by the applicant and appointed by the court) provides for the sale of the assets and the net price is deposited in a credit institution and held to the order of the enforcement agent, who must communicate it to the court within five days of the sale. Should the auction not realise the required amount, there are specific rules for the following sale attempts for different kinds of assets. For example, if an auction of immovable assets fails, an attempt must be made to sell them through private bids to be submitted in writing to the enforcement agent.

Interim relief proceedings are not available in the Qatar courts. However, interim relief may be granted by way of a precautionary attachment to freeze the debtor's assets.

Interim relief can be granted in order to preserve the claimant's rights, or to prevent irreparable damage to the claimant, until a final decision on the case is provided. For instance, by means of interim relief, the court will determine the children's situation until a final decision on the divorce of the parents is reached or will suspend the effect of an administrative act until the court will rule on the validity of such act.

As a general rule, interim measures are granted only when the proceedings on the merits of the claim have already been initiated (i.e. there is an ongoing case) or, in cases expressly provided by the law, prior to the initiation of the proceedings.

Legal representation by an attorney is not mandatory in interim relief proceedings. A claim for interim measures must meet the same formal requirements as any other claim in court. However, it is not subject to an extensive written phase of the litigation, as the procedure needs to be resolved urgently. The court's decision does not stand as res judicata on the substantive claim, so it does not affect the merits of the dispute between the parties.

To obtain the interim relief, the claimant must show that the initial analysis of the claim is in their favor and that there is urgency for the protective measures to be taken.

An interim relief decision can be obtained typically in two to eight weeks, with appeals lasting a further two to four weeks. A decision granting or rejecting an interim relief application is only subject to appeal within five days of the decision. An appeal does not suspend the effects of an interim measure.

Interim relief measures aim to secure enforcement of a future judgment and to prevent harm to the subject of the case or to the applicant.

The law does not provide an exhaustive list of injunctive relief. Injunctions may include, for example, freezing monetary assets, securities, rights to real estate and moveable assets of the respondent (for further details see Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders) or prohibiting the respondent or other persons from committing certain actions concerning the subject of the dispute.

An application for injunctive relief may be submitted simultaneously with the statement of claim or in the course of proceedings before the judgment is rendered by the court.

Upon an application by the claimant, a state commercial court may grant injunctive relief sought by the applicant. The court will consider an application no later than the next day after the submission of the application to the court. There is no requirement that the application should be signed by an attorney (advocate).

The court may grant an injunction in circumstances where it finds it appropriate, relevant to the dispute, and necessary to ensure the status quo. An injunction is granted ex parte. The respondent may challenge an injunction within a month from the date of the court ruling granting injunction. Representation by an attorney in interim relief proceedings is not mandatory. However, legislative amendments expected to enter into force by 1 October 2019, will require representatives to have a higher legal education or a degree in law (with some exceptions outlined in the legislation).   

In practice, state commercial courts are reluctant to grant injunctive relief.

In Saudi Arabia, interim relief proceedings are referred to as "summary cases", and the requests made under such proceedings are referred to as "summary requests". The court with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the main dispute has jurisdiction to grant interim measures in respect of urgent matters related to the main dispute, where the lapse of time may cause an irreparable harm. Types of interim measures include (as stated under Article 206 of the Civil Procedures Law):

• "cases of inspection to establish a condition" (these are cases where the judge is required to inspect the condition of an asset so, for example, a judge may visit and inspect a property to provide an official monetary valuation of the real estate at that particular time);
• cases of an injunction banning travel;
• cases of an injunction banning interference with possession and recovery of possession;
• cases of suspension of new actions;
• cases requesting receivership;
• cases relating to daily wages; and
• other cases deemed urgent by law.

By law, if a summary request is sought before the main action has been commenced, a judgment on these urgent matters should always be followed by a claim on the merits. In practice, the claimant usually files the main case and then subsequently files the request for a judgment on urgent related matters. The hearing for a summary request shall be within 24 hours from submitting the request, however in practice it may take longer. The law does not specify a maximum period through which a decision on the summary request should be issued.

The party can appeal the interim relief judgment within 10 days of the notification of the judgement to the parties.

As in ordinary proceedings before the Saudi courts, representation by an attorney in these urgent related matters is not mandatory. Every individual has the right to defend themselves without the need to appoint an attorney or legal representative.

The claimant is required to provide a financial guarantee to the court in case the claim proves to be incorrect. The amount for any guarantee is subject to the judge's discretion.

The Singapore courts have wide powers and discretion to grant a variety of interim remedies, including injunctions, search orders and interim payments. 

The Single Application Pending Trial (SAPT) mechanism was introduced by the ROC 2021 with a view of streamlining interlocutory applications. To the extent possible, the court must order a SAPT to be made by each party, which includes:

• addition or removal of parties;
• consolidation of actions;
• division of issues at trial to be heard separately;
• security for costs;
• further and better particulars of pleadings;
• amendment of pleadings;
• filing of further pleadings;
• striking out of part of an action or of the defense;
• judgment on admission of facts;
• determination of questions of law or construction of documents;
• production of documents;
• interim relief;
• expert evidence and assessors;
• independent witnesses and interest non-parties; and
• independent counsel.

The court will usually give directions for the filing of the SAPT at a case conference. Under the ROC 2021, the court must order the applying party to file and serve its application and supporting affidavit within 21 days from the date of the case conference and the other party to file and serve an affidavit in reply within 21 days thereafter. The matters in an SAPT can be dealt with over several hearings.

No application may be taken out by any party at any time other than as directed at the case conference or with the court’s approval, save for the following:

• an injunction or search order;
• substituted service;
• service out of Singapore;
• setting aside service of an originating process;
• judgment in default of a notice of intention to contest or not contest;
• judgment in default of defense;
• summary judgment;
• striking out of the whole of an action or defense;
• stay of the whole action;
• stay of enforcement of a judgment or order;
• an enforcement order;
• permission to appeal;
• transfer of proceedings under the State Courts Act;
• setting aside third-party proceedings;
• permission to apply for a committal order; or
• the subject of the confidentiality order is an offshore case.

In addition, no application may be taken out during the period of 14 days before the commencement of the trial and ending when the court has determined the merits of the action, except in a special case and with the trial Judge’s approval.

The requirements for obtaining interim relief depend on the type of relief sought. For instance, the court will only grant an interim injunction before trial where:

• there is a serious question to be tried; and
• the balance of convenience lies in favour granting or refusing the interlocutory relief that is sought.

The overarching guiding principle is that the court should take the course which appears to lower the risk of injustice if it should turn out to be wrong at trial. The applicant will usually be required to give an undertaking to abide by a subsequent order to as to damages for any loss that the respondent may suffer as a result of the interim injunction.

While interlocutory applications are generally heard inter partes (with one or more parties being served with the application), they can be heard ex parte (with no other parties being served with the application) in appropriate circumstances and even before the issue of proceedings, such as where the case is one of urgency. Such circumstances include the risk of dissipation of assets and destruction of evidence, and there must be some genuine factual basis for this belief. Where applications are made ex parte, the applicant is subject to a duty of full and frank disclosure of all material facts.   

Subject to the issues of whether the court’s permission is required and whether the decision is appealable, a dissatisfied party may file a Notice of Appeal in respect of the court’s decision in an application, including decisions made in respect of a SAPT. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 14 days after the date of the decision, although the time for the filing of an appeal arising from a SAPT does not start to run until all matters including costs have been heard and determined by the court. An appeal does not suspend the effect of the appealed decision unless the court directs otherwise.

Again, there is no mandatory requirement for parties to be legally represented, and they may represent themselves as litigants-in-person.

An application for an interim measure (such as a preliminary injunction) may be made before, during or after the proceedings. The purpose of an interim measure is the urgent protection of the rights of a party that have been threatened or violated. An interim measure is granted on the basis of a simplified and urgent court procedure. For example, the court may decide on an interim measure within a shortened time frame (30 days from the receipt of the application for an interim measure) and without having to take full evidence (for example, the court will generally rely only on the allegations and evidence of the party seeking the interim measure).

By an interim measure, the court may impose a wide range of obligations or restrictions on a party to the dispute. The Civil Procedure Code provides a list of what interim measures may be impose on a party, but in practice the measures primarily imposed are:

• ordering the deposit of a sum of money or asset into the court’s custody;
• prohibiting the disposal of certain assets or rights; and
• mandating or prohibiting the performance of, or requiring the endurance of, some act.

Depending on the type of interim measure, the duration of relief will differ. A temporary interim measure will only provide the applicant with the relevant protection up to a certain point in time (usually until the final decision of the main proceedings).

A party may appeal an order of the court granting or revoking an interim measure or freezing order. The applicant must file its appeal within 15 days of the delivery of the decision granting the interim measure. As an interim measure is enforceable by delivery, an appeal will not suspend the effect of an interim relief measure.

South African law makes provision for interim interdicts to be sought as interim relief. A formal application can be launched for an interim interdict, which is a judicial process whereby a person is directed to perform or ordered to refrain from doing a particular act. This remedy is of an extraordinary nature and is only allowed where a person requires protection against an actual or threatened unlawful interference with his or her rights. An interdict can only be used as a remedy for ongoing or future infringements (i.e. no historic infringements).

An interim interdict can be brought on an ex parte basis.

An interim interdict is granted pendente lite, as a provisional order designed to protect the rights of the complainant pending an action or application to be brought to establish the respective rights of the parties. Its effect is to maintain the status quo pending the final determination of the court, at which point it ceases to operate. It is aimed at ensuring, as far as it is reasonably possible, that the party who is ultimately successful will receive adequate and effective relief.

The requirements for an interim interdict are as follows:

• the applicant must have a prima facie right that it seeks to protect;
• there must be a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted;
• the balance of convenience must favour the granting of an interim interdict; and
• no other satisfactory remedy must exist.

The court has discretion whether to grant an interim interdict, which must be exercised upon consideration of all the facts. Some factors which are taken into consideration are the applicant’s prospects of success in the main action, the availability of an adequate ordinary remedy, the balance of convenience and the respective prejudice that would be suffered by each party as a result of the grant or refusal of an interlocutory interdict.

An interim interdict is usually applied for on an urgent basis, and an application may be refused if the applicant has delayed before applying. The timing of determining an interim interdict application depends on the facts but can range from a few hours to months.

A decision on an interim interdict usually cannot be appealed. However, in exceptional circumstances and, importantly, if the interests of justice permit it, a party may be granted leave to appeal.

In South Korea, interim relief may be sought by filing a petition for preliminary attachment or provisional injunction together with the main action. To obtain such relief, the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case that it will be irreparably harmed if the requested relief is not granted.

A preliminary attachment preserves and freezes the property or assets of a debtor. The courts generally allow preliminary attachment if the requesting party can establish:

• the need to preserve assets;
• the claim has merit; and
• the assets are owned by the debtor.

The courts generally issue a preliminary attachment order on an ex parte basis, within two to three weeks from receiving the request.

There are two types of provisional injunction in South Korea:

• injunction to temporarily prohibit the debtor from disposing of the property that is the subject of the dispute.
• injunction to temporarily preserve the disputed rights.

The courts generally decide on a preliminary injunction application within one month of the date of filing, which may be prolonged if the courts hold a preliminary injunction hearing. The courts rule on provisional injunction requests after the respondent is afforded an opportunity to object.

The party seeking injunctive relief is responsible for any damages suffered by the respondent if the respondent prevails in the main action. Thus, the courts may order the party seeking injunctive relief to provide adequate security to cover such damages.

In Spain, interim relief proceedings can be brought where such relief is necessary to ensure enforcement of a future judgment. The interim measures that can be granted primarily include:

• injunctions (i.e., an order requiring a party to do or not to do something);
• preventive freezing orders;
• interventions or court-ordered receiverships of productive assets;
• deposits of moveable assets;
• preparing inventories of assets in accordance with conditions to be specified by the court;
• precautionary registry entries of the claim in the Public Registry;
• court orders to provisionally cease an activity; or
• suspensions of contested corporate resolutions.

There is no informal way to obtain interim relief. An application must be filed in writing before the court with jurisdiction to deal with the main claim.

In order to be successful, an applicant seeking interim relief must satisfy each of the following requirements:

• provide the particulars, arguments and documentary evidence allowing the court to justify, without prejudging the merits of the case, a provisional and circumstantial judgment in favor of the claim (appearance of a good claim or fumus boni iuris);
• prove that, if the requested measures are not adopted before the judgment is issued, there is a real risk that any judgment in favor of the applicant would be defeated or prejudiced (risk in procedural delay or periculum in mora); and
• offer security to the court in order to compensate the respondent and related third parties (in a speedy and effective manner) for loss if it is found that the freezing order was wrongly granted (caución).

It is difficult to estimate the timeframe for interim relief proceedings. Non-urgent interim relief proceedings can range between one to six months, but in urgent ex parte proceedings, interim relief can be granted in a matter of days (depending on the court’s workload).

Interim relief orders are usually granted by first instance courts. Appeals against such orders are resolved by Provincial Courts in a timeframe ranging between six and 18 months.

The Swedish judicial procedure provides tools to obtain interim relief. The (prospective) claimant may request interim relief during or prior to the initiation of substantive proceedings. The type of relief that may be granted will depend on the measures that are required to secure the claimant’s interests until the case is decided. The most common types of interim relief are attachment or freezing of assets (for further detail see Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders) or prohibition to perform certain actions i.e. breach a non-compete clause.

Prerequisites for obtaining interim relief are:

• that the claimant can show that the claims have reasonable merit;
• that the relief sought would be in jeopardy unless the measure is granted; and
• that the claimant can provide sufficient collateral for the possible damage caused by the interim relief.

If the court is satisfied that the prerequisites are met, the relief can be granted before the defendant has been served. If the relief sought is granted, the claimant must initiate the proceedings or arbitration within one month.

A claim for interim relief may be granted within a day, and no later than within a week of filing the application for interim relief. The defendant may appeal against an interim relief judgment within three weeks. As in almost all Swedish court proceedings, representation by an attorney is not mandatory.

Interim orders may be granted by the court. These orders include restraining orders, possessory orders and orders requiring government agencies to suspend or revoke administrative decisions. Search orders are not available for civil proceedings.

A party may file an application for interim relief before, during or after the judgment (pending execution).

A party may also file for emergency relief which is considered on an ex parte basis. If accepted, the court will consider and determine the application on the same day.

The Thai courts impose a high threshold to obtain an emergency injunction. An applicant will need to prove the following:

• an imminent threat of serious harm;
• the likelihood of success of challenging the merits of the claim, against which the emergency application is being sought; and
• that the respondent has no or limited assets in Thailand against which the applicant may seek to eventually enforce a judgment, once the case is concluded.

The defendant may immediately file an application requesting the court to reverse the emergency injunction. Such application may also be made ex parte by permission of the court.

It is not mandatory for parties to seek legal representation in interim relief proceedings. In practice, however, it is very common for a legal counsel to be instructed.

The interim relief can be appealed, by the parties that disagree with the order, within thirty (30) days from the date it was handed down. The appeal would not suspend the relief.

A range of interim remedies are available to parties to legal proceedings. Interim remedies are provisional measures generally granted with a view to preserving the status quo, or preventing the dissipation of assets. Common applications for interim remedies include: interim declarations; interim injunctions (injunctions are orders prohibiting a person from doing something or requiring a person to do something); orders for the detention, custody, preservation, inspection, sampling of relevant property; sale of relevant property which is of perishable nature or which for any other good reason it is desirable to sell quickly; freezing injunctions; search orders; orders to provide information about assets; injunctions restraining foreign legal proceedings; applications for security for costs; applications for orders for interim payment on account of any damages, debt or other sum the court may hold the defendant liable to pay; applications for further information; extensions of time; and specific disclosure.

An order for an interim remedy may be made at any time, including: (i) before proceedings are started; and (ii) after judgment has been given. However, the court may only grant an interim remedy before proceedings are started if the matter is urgent or it is otherwise desirable to do so in the interests of justice. If the court grants an interim remedy before a claim has been started, the court should give directions requiring a claim to be commenced.

As a general rule, no order should be made in civil proceedings without notice to the other side unless there are good reasons for departing from the general rule that notice must be given. An application for interim relief must be supported by evidence, unless the court orders otherwise. In ex parte (i.e. without notice) applications, relief can generally be obtained within a matter of days. However, it is possible to obtain an interim order (including an interim injunction) at a few hours' notice if the urgency of the matter justifies it. If the court grants the ex parte application, the defendant is provided with an opportunity to object to the granting of relief at a subsequent hearing (referred to as the return date). At this hearing, the defendant would seek to persuade the court that any order made should not be continued.

The criteria for obtaining relief varies depending on the type of relief sought but the overarching principles the court will consider when it comes to interim injunctions, for example, include whether there is a serious issue to be tried. The evidence must show that the applicant has a real prospect of succeeding in its claim and, if so:

• whether, if the applicant were to be successful at trial, damages would be an adequate remedy;
• whether, if the respondent were to be successful at trial, damages under a cross-undertaking to pay damages by the applicant in return for an interim injunction would be an adequate remedy; and
• if there is a question as to the adequacy of damages to either or both parties, whether it would be just and reasonable to grant the relief sought.

The parties can appeal the court's decision on the application for interim relief to a higher court. The appellant will usually need to seek permission within 21 days of the date of the initial decision. Where the lower court refuses the application for permission to appeal, a further application may be made to the appeal court. Such application must be filed within seven days after service of the notice from the lower court that permission to appeal has been refused. Either way, permission will only be granted where the appeal has a real prospect of success, or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

Again, legal representation is not mandatory, although as applications for interim relief can be relatively complex, it is ordinarily the case that both parties are legally represented.

In Scotland, interim relief proceedings are subject to statutory and court rules. The relevant court procedure depends on the type of relief sought and the court in which the application is made. Both the Court of Session and the sheriff court may grant interim relief.

In Scotland, there are four broad categories of interim relief available:

• measures to preserve evidence (for further details on preservation of documents, see Disclosure and discovery);
• measures to secure assets in relation to money claims (for further details see Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders);
• preservation of assets in the event of insolvency; and
• measures to protect a party's right against a wrongdoing (also referred to as interim interdict).

Remedies in respect of interim relief decisions, including appeal processes, are available but they vary depending on the category of interim relief involved and the court making the decision

Natural parties can represent themselves in interim relief proceedings (and other proceedings). Corporate entities must ask the court for permission for a director or partner to represent them. If permission is refused, then the entity would require to be represented by a solicitor.

Preservation of assets in the event of insolvency

An ex parte (i.e. without notice) application may be made as part of insolvency proceedings for an interim order to appoint an insolvency practitioner to preserve assets pending a formal appointment being concluded. This measure is only available where there is a risk that those in control of the company or organization concerned may dissipate assets if they are given advance notice of the insolvency proceedings. The procedural requirements vary depending on the insolvency process being pursued and the court in which the application is being made.

Interim interdict

An interim interdict is a court order requiring a person not to do something pending the resolution of a claim for interdict. It is the equivalent of an interim injunction in England.

The party seeking an interim interdict must demonstrate to the court that there is a prima facie case and that "the balance of convenience" favors the granting of the order. The order can be sought and obtained on an urgent basis by making an application to the court. If an order is sought urgently, these can usually be heard by the court within 24 hours. It can also be granted without notice.

However, if the defender to an interim interdict application has lodged a caveat at court (effectively an early warning device) the court will require that the defender be made aware of the application and be given a right to be heard by the court before the order is granted.

If the order is granted ex parte, then the defender may apply at anytime to have the order recalled (withdrawn). If the order is granted with both parties in attendance at the hearing, the defender must show a material change in circumstances to have the order recalled. If the defender wishes to appeal, on the facts or the law, then the timeframe is within 14 days of the decision.

It is not necessary for a party to be represented by a solicitor at interim relief proceedings, but given the legal arguments necessary, legal representation is normal. Individuals can represent themselves and companies and other business vehicles can apply for permission to be represented by a lay representative (such as a director).

Interim relief proceedings are proceedings that relate to a party seeking orders for interim/provisional relief. Such orders are usually granted at an early stage in the proceedings, or before the merits of a dispute are examined. These are distinguished from final remedies which ordinarily form part of the final judgments or orders that dispose of a dispute. There are a wide range of these orders and they usually act to maintain the status quo between the parties. Such orders or remedies can also be stand-alone in their nature; for example, an anti-suit injunction which prevents or restricts a party's ability to commence or continue legal proceedings in a particular forum.

The ability to grant and apply for interim remedies is enshrined in the court laws and procedural rules of each of the DIFC and ADGM. At the date of writing, there have been no reported interim applications or orders in the ADGM courts. The DIFC courts, on the other hand, have either granted or heard applications for various interim remedies, including:

• freezing orders (including worldwide freezing orders) (for further details, please see ‘Prejudgment attachments and freezing orders’ below);
• disclosure orders;
• anti-suit injunctions; and
• interim payment orders.

Applications for interim relief are made to the DIFC court and/or ADGM Court of First Instance either on an ex parte basis (i.e. where the respondent is not present at the first hearing) or with notice. In circumstances where the application is made on an ex-parte basis, the applicant is under a duty of full and frank disclosure which in turn requires it to disclose all relevant material to the court, including material which may be adverse to its case.

Before entertaining any substantive application for interim relief, the party seeking an interim remedy from either the DIFC or ADGM courts will first need to establish that the relevant court has jurisdiction under its relevant jurisdictional laws. When deciding the substantive application, DIFC court case law illustrates that the approach in deciding the substantive elements of the application generally follows the principles for granting equitable relief in English law. The applicable tests differ depending on the relief sought. However, those elements include:

• whether there is a serious question to be tried;
• whether damages would be an adequate remedy; and
• the balance of convenience between the parties.

Orders for interim relief issued by the DIFC and/or the ADGM court are not appealable, although a party may apply to have the relevant order varied or set aside. The procedure and basis for doing so will depend on the basis on which the particular order was issued.

Given that the DIFC and ADGM are fairly young jurisdictions, it is difficult to accurately estimate the timeframe by which orders for interim relief could be obtained once applied for.

Legal representation for such applications is not mandatory. However, it is strongly recommended that legal advice is sought in respect of any application for interim relief due to the complexity of the legal issues relating to such applications.

State and federal courts have wide discretion to grant interim relief in the form of injunctive orders. These orders may require a party to do, or refrain from doing, a particular act. Injunctive orders are equitable in nature, and such relief therefore does not typically include an order requiring the payment of money. It is not possible, for instance, to obtain an interim money judgment against a defendant. Interim injunctive orders take one of two forms:

• temporary restraining orders, which are usually reserved for emergency situations, may be issued without notice to other parties or a hearing in as little as a few hours but expire after a limited period of time (usually 14 days); and
• preliminary injunctions, which are typically sought in non-emergency situations, remain in place for the duration of the litigation and require notice and a hearing with the opposing party. Individuals may be represented by an attorney or elect to represent themselves in these proceedings. Corporate parties must typically be represented by an attorney.

Courts are typically reluctant to issue preliminary injunctions, and even more reluctant to issue temporary restraining orders, particularly if the enjoined party has not had an opportunity to present its position. To obtain interim injunctive relief, a party must file a motion accompanied by evidence (for example, affidavits and relevant documents) establishing that the party is entitled to relief. The court may also order a hearing at which testimony on the motion will be presented. Courts generally look at four factors when assessing a party’s request for interim injunctive relief:

• whether the requesting party is likely to succeed on the merits of its case;
• whether an award of money damages would not be sufficient to cure the alleged injury;
• whether, on balance, equity favors the issuance of the injunction; and
• whether the public interest favors the injunction.

Courts consider similar factors when assessing requests for permanent injunctive relief, which can be awarded as part of a judgment on the merits. In federal court and in some states, an immediate appeal is permitted from an order granting or denying injunctive relief.