Injunctions are powerful legal tools used to preserve the status quo, prevent harm, or compel action. But how long do these court orders actually last? The answer is that the duration of an injunction is flexible and depends on the specific terms set by the court. The order may last for a set number of days, persist “until further order”, or be subject to change upon further application. Courts also retain discretion to extend, vary, or revoke injunctions, provided certain conditions are met.

This article explores the legal principles governing the duration and extension of injunctions, drawing on key judicial decisions to outline how courts determine timeframes and what parties must consider when seeking extensions.

Initial Duration of Injunctions

Courts may specify the duration of an injunction in several ways, depending on the urgency and nature of the dispute:

  • Fixed-Term Injunctions are made to last for a specific time period or tied to a particular event
  • “Until Further Order”, Injunctions are commonly used in both interim and interlocutory stages, which allows the court to retain oversight of the matter.
  • Short-Term Interim Injunctions are generally granted when an ex parte application is made (ie, where the defendant was not made aware of the application before it was made), normally for a few days to allow the defendant to oppose and set aside the injunction.

Extending an Injunction: Legal and Procedural Framework

While an injunction’s original duration is important, the ability to extend it is equally crucial, particularly in prolonged disputes. The process of extending an injunction involves strict procedural requirements and judicial discretion.

Key Requirements

In general, the applicant must apply for the extension before the existing injunction expires. However, in some circumstances, late applications may still be considered. 

Applicants must prepare for the contest, providing evidence justifying the need for continued protection. Courts consider factors such as:

  • The merits of the underlying case
  • Whether continuing the injunction would be unconscionable
  • Whether there is a genuine need for ongoing restraint.

Key Considerations

Courts have broad powers to vary, revoke, or extend injunctions as justice requires. In exercising this discretion, several practical and legal considerations come into play:

  1. Cost Implications

Applications to extend that lack merit may result in adverse costs orders. Costs can either be reserved for later determination or made “costs in the cause” (i.e., aligned with the outcome of the case).

  1. Procedural Compliance

To maximise the chances of success, the applicant should:

  • Provide notice to opposing parties
  • Present evidence supporting the need for extension
  • Give an undertaking as to damages, especially in interlocutory matters, meaning if it is held that the injunction was wrongfully granted, then the plaintiff is liable to the defendant for any loss or damage occasioned by the wrongful injunction. These undertakings must not be taken lightly, as serious damages can arise as a result of a wrongful injunction being granted.

Conclusion

The duration and extension of injunctions reflect a balance between urgency, fairness, and judicial control. Whether lasting a few days or subject to ongoing court oversight, injunctions are not a static instrument; they evolve with the case and must be carefully managed. Legal practitioners must be alert to deadlines, prepare strong supporting materials, and approach the court with well-grounded justifications for any extension.

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.

+ posts

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."