In the Australian legal system, fairness and transparency are central to the administration of justice. One core principle is that both sides must be heard before a court makes a binding order. However, in exceptional and urgent circumstances, the court may grant an ex parte injunction, which is an injunction issued without giving prior notice to the other party. While rare and stringently controlled, ex parte injunctions play an important role in preventing imminent and irreparable harm.
General Rule Against Ex Parte Relief
The courts are generally reluctant to grant orders without notice. The general rule is that ex parte injunctions are viewed as unusual, exceptional, and contrary to the typical adversarial process.
There are generally two situations where an ex parte injunction is appropriate:
- Where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction. For instance, an injunction to restrain someone from transacting on a bank account or removing assets. In this case, if the defendant was aware of the application for an injunction before it was heard, the defendant could transact on the account or remove the assets before the hearing, rendering the injunction worthless.
- Where there is literally no time to give notice. This might arise when the wrongful conduct is imminent, and any delay, even for short notice, would result in irreversible harm.
These scenarios are exceptions, not the norm. The threshold for ex parte relief remains high, and the court must be persuaded of genuine urgency or risk.
Types of Ex Parte Injunctions
There are two forms of ex parte injunctions that courts may issue:
- Short-Term Orders, where the injunction is granted for a short period of time, often a few days, after which the defendant must be notified promptly and allowed to oppose an extension or continuation of the order.
- Until Further Order, where the injunction is granted on a provisional basis, allowing the defendant to have the order reviewed or set aside.
Procedural Requirements for Applicants
Applicants for ex parte injunctions face strict duties:
- The applicant must disclose all relevant facts, including any that might weigh against the injunction
- The applicant bears the ongoing burden of justifying the continuation of the order once the matter returns to court
- The applicant must demonstrate that no form of notice, even informal, was feasible under the circumstances.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact Damin Murdock at Leo Lawyers via our website, on (02) 8201 0051 or at office@leolawyers.com.au. Further, if you liked this article, please subscribe to our newsletter via our Website, and subscribe to our YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. If you liked this article or video, please also give us a favourable Google Review.
DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice and is general information only. You should not rely upon the information contained in this article, and if you require specific legal advice, please contact us.
Damin Murdock (J.D | LL.M | BACS - Finance) is a seasoned commercial lawyer with over 17 years of experience, recognised as a trusted legal advisor and courtroom advocate who has built a formidable reputation for delivering strategic legal solutions across corporate, commercial, construction, and technology law. He has held senior leadership positions, including director of a national Australian law firm, principal lawyer of MurdockCheng Legal Practice, and Chief Legal Officer of Lawpath, Australia's largest legal technology platform. Throughout his career, Damin has personally advised more than 2,000 startups and SMEs, earning over 300 five-star reviews from satisfied clients who value his clear communication, commercial pragmatism, and in-depth legal knowledge. As an established legal thought leader, he has hosted over 100 webinars and legal videos that have attracted tens of thousands of views, reinforcing his trusted authority in both legal and business communities."
