Urgent Injunctions in Queensland: When You Need the Court to Act Fast

Key Takeaways

• An injunction is a court order that compels a party to do something or restrains them from doing something. It is one of the most powerful remedies available in commercial disputes.
• In urgent matters, you can apply without notice to the other party. In Queensland, this is under UCPR r 259. In the Federal Court, it is under r 7.01 of the Federal Court Rules (before proceedings are commenced) or r 17.01 (in existing proceedings).
• The court applies the test from Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618: the applicant must show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
• Applicants must give an undertaking as to damages (a serious financial exposure if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted) and must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts on ex parte applications.
• Freezing orders and search orders are distinct remedies with different tests, different procedural requirements and different practice directions. A freezing order restrains dealings with assets. A search order permits entry to premises to preserve evidence. Both are obtained without notice but the thresholds and safeguards differ.
• Injunctive relief is available in the Supreme Court, the District Court (within its jurisdiction) and the Federal Court.

1. 1.What Is an Injunction?
2. 2.Types of Injunctions in Commercial Disputes
3. 3.Freezing Orders (Mareva Injunctions)
4. 4.Search Orders (Anton Piller Orders)
5. 5.Ex Parte Applications: Getting an Injunction Without Notice
6. 6.The Legal Test for an Interlocutory Injunction
7. 7.The Undertaking as to Damages
8. 8.Practical Guide: How to Apply for an Urgent Injunction
9. 9.Common Scenarios Where Businesses Need Urgent Injunctions
10. 10.Costs of Urgent Injunction Applications
11. 11.Frequently Asked Questions

When a former business partner is transferring assets offshore, a competitor is misusing your trade secrets or a party is about to complete a transaction that will cause your business irreparable harm, you do not have the luxury of waiting months for a trial. You need the court to act now. That is what urgent injunctions are for.

This guide explains how urgent injunctions work in Queensland commercial disputes, covering the Queensland state courts under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and the Federal Court of Australia under the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). It covers the legal tests, the different types of injunctive relief available and the practical steps for obtaining an order.

Need urgent injunctive relief? Contact Astris Law immediately on (07) 3519 5616. We handle emergency commercial litigation including ex parte applications, freezing orders and urgent interlocutory relief.

What Is an Injunction?

An injunction is a court order that either forces someone to do something (mandatory injunction) or stops them from doing something (prohibitory injunction). It is an equitable remedy, meaning it is discretionary and not available as of right.

In Queensland, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief is governed by the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 9 and the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction preserved by the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld) s 11. The procedural framework for injunctions and similar orders is set out in the UCPR 1999 (Qld) Chapter 8 Part 2, covering rr 255A through r 265.

The District Court also has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief in matters within its jurisdiction. The same UCPR provisions apply. In practice, most urgent commercial injunctions are sought in the Supreme Court because of the amounts typically at stake, but if the underlying dispute falls within the District Court's jurisdiction, injunctive relief can be obtained there.

The Federal Court also has jurisdiction to grant injunctions in matters arising under Commonwealth legislation, including the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), under s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). However, the Queensland Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction over many of these matters through cross-vesting arrangements. In practice, urgent applications under the Corporations Act or the Australian Consumer Law are regularly brought in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Types of Injunctions in Commercial Disputes

Ex parte injunctions are obtained without notice to the other party. These are reserved for genuinely urgent situations where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order or where the delay in giving notice would cause irreparable harm. Because the respondent has not been heard, ex parte orders are granted for a limited period only. The court will set a return date, typically within days, at which the respondent has the opportunity to appear and argue the order should be dissolved or varied. The applicant bears a strict duty of full and frank disclosure to the court and must provide an undertaking as to damages.

Interim injunctions are obtained urgently on a temporary basis, lasting until the court can hear both sides (typically 7 to 14 days). An interim injunction may be granted ex parte or on short notice.

Interlocutory injunctions are granted during proceedings to preserve the status quo until trial. These are the most common form of injunction in commercial disputes. They keep things as they are while the court determines the underlying rights.

Final (permanent) injunctions are granted after trial as a final remedy. If the court finds in your favour, a final injunction permanently restrains the conduct.

Mandatory injunctions require the respondent to take positive action (as opposed to merely refraining from something). These attract a higher threshold: the applicant must show a high degree of assurance that they will succeed at trial (Meagher, Gummow & Lehane's Equity: Doctrines and Remedies). Courts are reluctant to grant mandatory interlocutory injunctions because they are difficult to reverse if the court later determines the order should not have been made.

Freezing Orders (Mareva Injunctions)

Freezing orders are a specific type of injunction that restrains a party from dissipating or dealing with assets to defeat a prospective judgment. They are distinct from ordinary injunctions and carry their own procedural requirements, their own practice direction and a different threshold test.

Named after Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509, the leading Australian authority is Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 612 (HCA).

Queensland Procedure

In Queensland, freezing orders are governed by UCPR Chapter 8 Part 2 Division 2, rr 260 to 260E.

The procedure in the Supreme Court is also governed by Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 1 of 2007. This practice direction is critical. It sets out the standard form of freezing order that the court expects applicants to use. It prescribes the information that must be included in the supporting affidavit, the form of the undertaking as to damages and the ancillary orders that typically accompany a freezing order, including orders for asset disclosure by the respondent. Departures from the standard form must be justified.

The practice direction also addresses the obligations on the applicant after the order is made, including the obligation to serve the order on the respondent and on any third parties affected by it (such as banks) and the obligation to notify the respondent of their right to apply to vary or discharge the order.

Federal Court Procedure

In the Federal Court, freezing orders are governed by Division 7.4 of the Federal Court Rules and the Freezing Orders Practice Note (GPN-FRZG). The Federal Court also prescribes a standard form order.

The Test

The applicant must establish:

A good arguable case on the substantive claim. This is a slightly higher threshold than the "serious question to be tried" required for ordinary interlocutory injunctions. You need to show your claim has a reasonable prospect of success.

A danger that a prospective judgment would be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the respondent's assets may be removed from Australia, disposed of, dealt with or diminished in value. The test for danger of dissipation comes from Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 319: the court looks at whether there is a real risk, not merely a theoretical possibility. Evidence of actual dissipation, unusual asset movements or the respondent's track record of avoiding creditors is relevant.

Freezing orders are almost always obtained without notice because tipping off the respondent would defeat the purpose.

The court is reluctant to grant a freezing order for an extended period on an ex parte basis. In practice, an initial freezing order obtained without notice may be granted for as little as three days, with the applicant required to return to court to seek an enlargement of the order once the respondent has been served and had the opportunity to be heard. This means the applicant needs to be prepared to move quickly after the initial order is made: serve the order, notify the respondent of the return date and be ready to argue for continuation of the order at short notice.

The order typically freezes all assets up to a specified value, requires the respondent to disclose all assets within a set timeframe and includes carve-outs for ordinary living expenses and reasonable legal fees.

Practical examples: a former business partner transferring company assets before you can enforce a judgment; a debtor moving money offshore; a director stripping a company before creditors can recover.

Search Orders (Anton Piller Orders)

Search orders are a fundamentally different remedy from freezing orders. A freezing order restrains dealings with assets. A search order permits the applicant to enter premises and search for or preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed. It is the most intrusive non-criminal remedy available and the requirements for obtaining one are correspondingly strict.

Named after Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55.

Queensland Procedure

In Queensland, search orders are governed by UCPR Chapter 8 Part 2 Division 3, rr 261 to 261E. These provisions are separate from the freezing order rules in Division 2 and impose their own requirements.

Federal Court Procedure

In the Federal Court, search orders are governed by Division 7.5 of the Federal Court Rules and the Search Orders Practice Note (GPN-SRCH).

The Test

The test for a search order is significantly more demanding than for a freezing order or an ordinary interlocutory injunction:

• An extremely strong prima facie case
• Very serious actual or potential damage to the applicant
• Clear evidence the respondent possesses incriminating documents or things
• A real possibility those documents may be destroyed or concealed before a proper application on notice can be made

The order must be supervised by an independent solicitor (not acting for either party) who oversees the search. This is a mandatory safeguard. The independent solicitor ensures the search is conducted within the scope of the order, that the respondent's rights are respected and that a proper record is kept of what is seized.

Commercial examples: IP theft where an employee copies proprietary software or client databases before departing; evidence destruction in fraud cases.

Ex Parte Applications: Getting an Injunction Without Notice

An ex parte application (or application without notice) is one made to the court without the other party being present or having been given notice of the hearing. All three types of order discussed above (interlocutory injunctions, freezing orders and search orders) can be obtained ex parte, but the circumstances in which the court will hear an application without notice differ depending on the order sought.

For ordinary interlocutory injunctions, the court will only dispense with notice where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order or where the delay caused by giving notice would cause irreparable harm.

For freezing orders, ex parte applications are the norm rather than the exception. The whole point of a freezing order is to prevent the respondent from dissipating assets, and giving notice would allow them to do exactly that.

For search orders, ex parte applications are always required. Notifying the respondent that you intend to search for and preserve evidence would give them the opportunity to destroy it.

Queensland Procedure

Under UCPR r 259, the court may make a Part 2 order without notice to the respondent. The application is made by filing an application in Form 9 under UCPR r 31, supporting affidavits setting out the facts, the urgency and why notice should be dispensed with, draft orders and a written outline of argument with authorities.

For freezing orders, the draft order should follow the standard form in Practice Direction 1 of 2007. For search orders, the application must address the mandatory requirement for an independent solicitor to supervise.

Federal Court Procedure

If proceedings have not yet been commenced, r 7.01 of the Federal Court Rules enables an application to be brought where the applicant intends to start a proceeding, the matter is urgent and the order sought is the grant of an injunction, freezing order, search order or similar relief. The form of application is Form 12, accompanied by an affidavit in Form 59. The applicant must undertake to commence proceedings within 14 days.

If proceedings have already been commenced, a party seeking urgent interlocutory relief files an interlocutory application in Form 35. Ordinarily three days' notice is required under r 17.01, but if the circumstances are such that the applicant will suffer serious prejudice, an abridgment of time can be sought. For ex parte applications, evidence must be adduced justifying why no party was served. In existing proceedings, the urgent application should be brought to the docket judge (or provisional docket judge) who has responsibility for the matter. The duty judge should only be approached if the docket judge is unavailable.

The Federal Court's work is divided into National Practice Areas. For matters not yet commenced, urgent commercial and corporations matters are dealt with by dedicated duty judges under the Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (C&C-1). For other matters, urgent originating applications go to the general duty judge in the relevant registry.

To arrange an urgent hearing in the Federal Court, the applicant's solicitor contacts the relevant duty judge's chambers directly. The Federal Court publishes duty judge contacts at fedcourt.gov.au/contact/urgent-duty-contact. The Federal Court permits unilateral communication with chambers for urgent originating applications and ex parte applications.

The Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure

This is a fundamental obligation on any ex parte applicant, regardless of which court or which type of order is sought. The duty arises from the court's inherent jurisdiction and is well established in case law (see, for example, Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock (1912) 15 CLR 679 and Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350). A solicitor seeking ex parte relief must disclose to the court all factual or legal matters which there are reasonable grounds to believe would support an argument against granting the relief.

Because the respondent is not present, the court relies entirely on the applicant to present a complete picture. The applicant has a positive duty to identify and disclose any defences or arguments the other side might raise, any facts that weigh against the application and any weaknesses in the applicant's own case. The obligation extends to privileged material. If privileged material is relevant, the solicitor must seek client instructions to waive privilege. If the client refuses, the solicitor must inform the court that full disclosure has not been given.

This obligation exists because ex parte orders are a significant interference with the respondent's rights. The undertaking as to damages is part of the counterbalance: the applicant assumes the financial risk that the order may later be found to have been wrongly granted, and must compensate the respondent for any loss. Together, the disclosure obligation and the undertaking as to damages protect the respondent's position until they have the opportunity to be heard at the return date.

Failure to make full and frank disclosure can result in the order being dissolved, adverse costs orders and serious consequences for the applicant's credibility in the proceeding.

The Legal Test for an Interlocutory Injunction

The leading authority is Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 (High Court of Australia), as applied and refined in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 (HCA). This test applies in both state and federal courts and governs ordinary interlocutory injunctions. Freezing orders and search orders have their own distinct tests as set out above.

The test has two limbs:

1. Serious Question to Be Tried

Has the applicant shown a sufficient likelihood of success to justify preserving the status quo? This is a relatively low threshold. You do not need to prove your case. You need to show it is not frivolous or vexatious and there is a real question to be determined. The English formulation from American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 is essentially the same test.

2. Balance of Convenience

Does the balance of convenience favour granting or refusing the injunction? The court weighs up:

• Adequacy of damages: could the applicant be adequately compensated by damages if the injunction is refused and they ultimately succeed at trial? If damages are adequate, the injunction is usually refused.
• Adequacy of the undertaking as to damages: could the respondent be adequately compensated under the undertaking if the injunction is granted but ultimately should not have been?
• Strength of the applicant's case: the stronger the prima facie case, the less the balance of convenience needs to favour the applicant (and vice versa). These two limbs are not independent. They interact.
• Whether the injunction would effectively dispose of the whole dispute: courts are reluctant to grant injunctions that resolve the case without a trial.
• The status quo and which party is trying to change it.
• Delay by the applicant in seeking relief. Delay undermines urgency and is a factor against granting.
• Impact on third parties.
• Public interest considerations.

The Undertaking as to Damages

An essential condition of virtually any interlocutory injunction, freezing order or search order. In Queensland, this is provided for under UCPR r 264. In the Federal Court, the Usual Undertaking as to Damages Practice Note (GPN-UNDR) governs the requirements.

The applicant (or their solicitor on their behalf) undertakes to the court to pay any damages the respondent suffers if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. This is a serious financial exposure. If you lose at trial, you may have to compensate the other side for all losses caused by the order, which in commercial disputes can be enormous: lost business opportunities, inability to deal with frozen assets, inability to complete transactions.

The court will consider whether the applicant has the financial capacity to meet the undertaking. For impecunious applicants, the court may still grant the order but will weigh this factor in the balance of convenience. In some cases, the court may require the applicant to provide security for the undertaking, such as a bank guarantee or payment into court.

Practical Guide: How to Apply for an Urgent Injunction

In the Queensland Supreme Court

An urgent application in the Supreme Court involves the following steps.

The applicant's solicitor prepares the originating application or interlocutory application (Form 9 under UCPR r 31), supporting affidavit evidence, draft orders and a written outline of argument with authorities. For freezing orders, the draft order must follow the standard form prescribed by Practice Direction 1 of 2007 and any departures must be justified. For search orders, the application must address the appointment of an independent supervising solicitor.

The applicant's solicitor contacts the Supreme Court registry to arrange an urgent hearing before the duty judge. Urgent applications can be heard at short notice or same-day where genuine urgency is demonstrated.

On an ex parte application, the applicant must satisfy the court that the matter is sufficiently urgent to justify proceeding without notice, present the evidence in support of the application and discharge the duty of full and frank disclosure including by identifying any defences or arguments the respondent might raise. The applicant must also provide the undertaking as to damages under UCPR r 264.

If the order is granted, it will specify a return date (usually 7 to 14 days) when both parties attend and the respondent has the opportunity to be heard. The applicant must serve the order on the respondent promptly. For freezing orders, service on relevant third parties such as banks is also required. The order is not enforceable until served.

At the return date hearing, the court reconsiders the order with both sides present. The respondent can adduce evidence and argue for dissolution or variation of the order.

Delay in bringing an application undermines urgency and is a factor the court will weigh against granting relief.

In the Federal Court

An urgent application in the Federal Court follows a similar structure but the procedural pathway differs.

If proceedings have not been commenced, the first step is to identify which National Practice Area the matter falls within. For commercial and corporations matters, there are dedicated duty judges under the Commercial and Corporations Practice Note (C&C-1). For other matters, the general duty judge in the relevant registry is the first point of contact. The applicant's solicitor contacts the relevant duty judge's chambers directly. The Federal Court permits unilateral communication with chambers for urgent originating applications and ex parte applications. Duty judge contact details are published at fedcourt.gov.au/contact/urgent-duty-contact. The application is filed in Form 12 with a supporting affidavit in Form 59 and an undertaking to commence proceedings within 14 days.

If proceedings have already been commenced, the urgent application should be brought to the docket judge who has responsibility for the matter. The duty judge should only be approached if the docket judge is unavailable. The application is filed in Form 35.

The same obligations of full and frank disclosure and the undertaking as to damages apply. If the order is granted, it will specify a return date and service requirements.

Common Scenarios Where Businesses Need Urgent Injunctions

• A former employee or business partner about to breach a restraint of trade or non-compete clause
• A party threatening to dissipate assets before you can enforce a debt or judgment (freezing order)
• Misuse of confidential information or trade secrets by a former employee or competitor
• A director improperly disposing of company assets to the detriment of shareholders or creditors
• A party about to complete a transaction that would cause irreparable harm to your business (e.g. selling a contested asset to a third party)
• Breach of an exclusive supply or distribution agreement where the other party is about to appoint a competitor
• A franchisor or franchisee acting in breach of a franchise agreement where damages would be inadequate
• Suspected fraud or document destruction requiring a search order to preserve evidence

Costs of Urgent Injunction Applications

Costs vary depending on complexity. As a general guide for Queensland applications:

• Ex parte application (including preparation of affidavit evidence, draft orders and submissions): up to $25,000
• Contested interlocutory hearing (half to full day): $10,000 to $30,000
• Barrister (if briefed): $3,000 to $10,000+ per day

Court filing fees for a Supreme Court originating application commenced by a company are approximately $3,000. If the injunction application is made as an interlocutory application in existing proceedings, no specific additional filing fee applies for the interlocutory application itself. Federal Court filing fees are comparable.

Costs may be recoverable from the other party if you ultimately succeed (costs follow the event). The undertaking as to damages is an additional financial exposure on top of legal fees and in commercial disputes can be substantially larger than the legal costs themselves.

Frequently Asked Questions

How quickly can I get an injunction?

In genuinely urgent cases, same-day or next-day. Both the Queensland Supreme Court duty judge and the Federal Court duty judges can hear urgent applications at short notice. Less urgent interlocutory applications are typically heard within 1 to 4 weeks.

Can I get an injunction without the other party knowing?

Yes. This is called an application without notice (or ex parte). It requires genuine urgency and the applicant must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to the court, including matters unfavourable to your case. For freezing orders and search orders, ex parte applications are the norm.

What is the difference between a freezing order and a search order?

A freezing order restrains the respondent from dealing with their assets. Its purpose is to preserve assets so that a judgment can be enforced. A search order permits the applicant to enter premises and search for evidence that might otherwise be destroyed. They serve different purposes, have different tests and are governed by different divisions of the UCPR (Division 2 for freezing orders, Division 3 for search orders). The Queensland Supreme Court also has a specific practice direction (Practice Direction 1 of 2007) that governs freezing order applications.

What is the undertaking as to damages?

A promise to the court that you will compensate the respondent for any loss suffered if the order is later found to have been wrongly granted. It is a near-universal requirement for interlocutory injunctions, freezing orders and search orders.

Can I get a freezing order to stop someone moving their assets?

Yes. Freezing orders are available where there is a danger that assets may be dissipated to defeat a judgment. They are almost always obtained without notice. In Queensland, they are governed by UCPR rr 260 to 260E and Practice Direction 1 of 2007. In the Federal Court, by Division 7.4 of the Federal Court Rules and the Freezing Orders Practice Note (GPN-FRZG).

Which court should I apply in?

It depends on the nature of the dispute, but the answer is not always obvious. Many commercial disputes involve Commonwealth legislation such as the Corporations Act or the Australian Consumer Law, and both the Federal Court and the Queensland Supreme Court have jurisdiction over these matters through cross-vesting. A freezing order against a director who has misappropriated company funds, for example, is a Corporations Act claim but it can be and regularly is brought in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The choice of forum is often a strategic decision informed by familiarity with the court, the urgency of the application, the duty judge system and practical considerations about enforcement. The District Court can grant injunctive relief in matters within its jurisdiction. Getting the forum right at the outset avoids unnecessary cost and delay.

If you need urgent injunctive relief, time is critical. Contact Astris Law immediately on (07) 3519 5616. We handle emergency commercial litigation in both the Queensland state courts and the Federal Court, including ex parte applications, freezing orders, search orders and urgent interlocutory relief. See our commercial litigation services.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances before acting on any information in this article. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.