Welcome to today’s Chamberlains Selection, where we will discuss with James d’Apice on the matter of ORKO v McClymont [2020] NSWSC 379. We will talk about the features of an interlocutory injunction and how it is applied in the case above.

The granting of an interlocutory injunction – a binding Court order that *immediately* stops a party doing something – is often complex. Speaking broadly and loosely, to get an interlocutory injunction you have to (i) convince the Court your claim is strong; (ii) convince the Court an injunction is more appropriate than an order for the payment of money; and (iii) give an undertaking to pay damages if the Court orders it. P and D entered into an agreement where D promised not to make disparaging comments about various parties. Despite the agreement, D went ahead and made disparaging comments: [3] P sought an interlocutory injunction to stop him. With admirable economy, the Court found P had an strong case and that damages would not be an adequate remedy for P: [7] The injunction was granted.