CIVIL LITIGATION & EVIDENCE

UNIT 7 – AMERICAN CYANAMID FLOWCHART

INTERIM INJUNCTIONS: THE AMERICAN CYANAMID PRINCIPLES

Purpose: How best to decide upon (a) the fairest temporary judge’s order
without seeing or testing the evidence at a trial and (b) whether a trial is
necessary.

IS THERE A SERIOUS QUESTION TO BE TRIED?

(1) the claim must have a recognised cause of action,
(2) not be “frivolous or vexatious”

N.B. No possible defence = No serious question = Grant “final” injunction now

If the claim is hopeless = No serious question = Refuse injunction and no need to
proceed to trial. If there IS a serious question to be tried, go to next box.

Which party is favoured in the wider BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE?

(all of the remaining points on this page are part of this question)

Would DAMAGES be an ADEQUATE

REMEDY for the Applicant instead of an injunction? Can Respondent pay such
damages?

IF YES IF NO

IF THERE IS NO CREDIBLE
749349079.odt DISPUTE ON THE FACTS (minority of 1
©The University of Law
cases) judge may also consider the
MERITS of the case i.e. whether it
INJUNCTION MAY
would succeed at BE
trial
GRANTED
 INTERIM INJUNCTION WILL NOT BE
GRANTED.
Judge will award damages to Applicant
instead.
IF NO
It is likely that the interim
injunction application will be
refused and the matter will
be resolved at trial.
749349079.odt
©The University of Law
Ask: Would DAMAGES be an adequate remedy
for the Respondent if an interim injunction were
wrongly granted? Could the Applicant pay them?
IF YES
Look beyond damages to the NARROW BALANCE OF
CONVENIENCE
“balance the risk of doing injustice”
i.e. all possible disadvantages (social, economic) to each
side of granting/not granting the injunction.
If evenly balanced, maintain the status quo which existed
until immediately before the application.
2