These plaintiffs also sought an interlocutory injunction to stop the chief electoral officer holding the referendum pending final disposition of their action.
What the judges were looking for was whether this case to stop the Charlottetown referendum could meet the criteria developed within the law alone for the granting of interlocutory injunctions.
It may be argued that the lack of controversy is due to the temporary nature of an interlocutory injunction.
Interlocutory injunctions are mandatory and violations of them hold serious consequences.
This premise underlies the last two prongs of the test: (1) determining whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is refused, (2) and (2) finding where the balance of inconvenience lies in granting or denying the injunction, or in other words, who between the applicant and the respondent will be most disadvantaged by the grant or denial of the interlocutory injunction.
It is thus puzzling why a court would grant an interlocutory injunction when it could easily determine that the right it serves to protect does not appear to exist.
Only by assessing where the circumstances of each application for an interlocutory injunction fall with respect to the premises underlying the traditional three-pronged test will courts be able to come to just and convenient results.
Rusoro") with respect to the interlocutory injunction
restraining Rusoro from proceeding with any unsolicited takeover bid of the Company until the conclusion and disposition at trial; the prices, production levels and supply of and demand for gold and copper produced or held by Gold Reserve; the potential volatility of Gold Reserve shares; the price and value of the Gold Reserve notes; uncertainty as to the future value of Gold Reserve; the prospects for exploration and development of projects by Gold Reserve; and risks normally incident to the operation and development of mining properties.
Following the issuance of the interlocutory injunctions
, Rusoro withdrew its hostile takeover bid for Gold Reserve class "A" common shares and equity units on February 10, 2009.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has obtained by consent interlocutory injunctions in the Federal Court in proceedings brought against Titan Marketing Pty Ltd (Titan) in relation to alleged contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), including misleading and unconscionable conduct.
The interlocutory injunctions, made by consent on 24 June 2013, restrain Titan, in relation to selling or attempting to sell any goods, from:
Safeguard Orders, continuing the two Preliminary Interlocutory Injunctions
granted to Fairstar at the Court appearance of 3 November 2004 (see Taurus news release of 4 November), were granted and will stay in effect until final judgment.