Talk:Injunction

Temporary

I believe temporary restraining orders (and probably temporary injunctions) deserve their own page, but I'm going to have to de-wikify 'temporary restraining orders' for now, because it just re-directs back to this page.

Interwiki link

I think the link to de: is wrong. Could someone with a better knowledge of german (and english) than mine check that? I believe the german article is for something like provisional decree. Didup

Andsvoss checked and removed the link on de: (see talk page there. I remove it here. Didup

I have added the correct German link, to Verfügung. The old link to Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz was partly justified because that article includes temporary injunctions. Something else: would it be correct to say that an injunction is called an interdict in Scotland (and a temporary injunction is an interim interdict)? --Doric Loon 20:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overruling an injunctive relief by the courts

Once a motion is file without predjudice by the courts. How do you go in and file some type of stay for due process. This question is regarding realestate in a Bankruptcy Case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.148.104 (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merger from Restraining order

Within the scope of Injunction and the article Restraining order needs globalising --Matilda ^talk 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reason this page was created was because when you searched Restraining Orders the first thing that came up was a page about women abusing a restraining order to hurt men. It was very bias and unfair. Since this restraining order page has been written, this is the first result when people search. Furthermore, I think people are less likely to call something an "Injuction". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.175.2 (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issues you raise are about whether the article is properly written without bias and in an encyclopaedic manner, not whether the two topics overlap and should be one article. --Matilda ^talk 20:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a new section be created in this article entitled "Types of Injunctions". Several sections of this article can be moved into that category, and then the "Restraining Order" article can be merged into this category as well, and the page for "Restraining Order" can redirect to this article. Seeing as how a "Protective Order" and a "Restraining Order" are almost the same thing, having one redirect here while the other has its own article is superfluous and inconsistent.---Puff (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, is restraining order exactly the same as injunction? I am a laymen here, but I've heard of the restraining order, but not of the injunction... if they are not the same, they should not be merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. items are similar but have different defintions. leave them separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.27.199 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==> A restraining order and an injunction are different things. A restraining order is against a person (or business, I suppose) whereas an injunction could address any number of cease and desist type orders. You could, for example, get an injunction to prevent someone from selling their milk to the market; this has nothing to do with a restraining order and merging them would simply be incorrect.

I disagree. Injunction and restraining order have more overlap that you seem to give credit to. I'm a student of law in the United States, and, for example, a temporary restraining order is a type of injunction that can be ordered to prevent someone from selling their milk, or from doing some other kind of action that you believe is unlawful or harmful, or even. Restraining orders are simply a subset of the broader term injunction, which itself could include compelling someone to do something, such as build a house that they agreed to do by contract and never followed through (specific performance). Rather, you should distinguish injunctions from other types of legal remedies, such as damages. Nar1822 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Don't merge. Restraining orders are generally/usually limited to family law and harassment situations. They have a certain permanence to them. By contrast, a temporary restraining order (TRO) lasts a very limited time and is related to ex-parte applications for protection while a more permanent Preliminary Injunction or Injunction is considered. By keeping Restraining order as a separate article, we can avoid the confusion with TROs. (And isn't it time to close this discussion?)--S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm removing the tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from 77Pacer Studios inc.

"I won't allow the article "Restraining order 2 B merged with injunction, b-cuz I'm under a restraining order with an old friend of mine. There is no reason for this. Because of this, Restraining orders should B illegal.

Boss of 77Pacer Studios inc. Saturday, January 31, 2009 @ 13:55 Hours" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.190.152 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[snip] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.195.141 (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion reflects a misunderstanding

Restraining Orders are a very small subset of injunctions. In other words, all restraining Orders are injunctions but the reverse is not the case. Further, it's my understanding that injunctions are universal equitable remedies, whereas restraining Orders are very specific to certain jurisdictions, for example those within the USA. Even where international equivalents exist, such as non-molestation Orders, in my view these function very differently (for example distance from specified geographical locations rather than specified persons).

Further, in some jurisdictions what used to be called writs of mandamus are now classified as injunctions, mandating rather than prohibiting certain acts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.195.141 (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that a restraining order has a very different connotation than injunctive relief. Injunctive relief often is used in a variety of court settings. A company (like McGraw Hill) requested injunctive relief from Google from copyright losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitization grrl (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

I've added the globalize tag. The article seems very US-Centric. Dvmedis (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Origin of word

Not sure why this set off an instant revert: [1] . Roy Greenslade is a Professor of Journalism at London's City University, so he should know what he is talking about. Please don't revert without a good reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section troubles me because, instead of discussing a legal term, it's discussing a press term that's been superimposed on a legal term. If I understand the term superinjunction properly, it probably is a word coined by the British press to describe an injunction whose terms are repugnant to the press. Now, there may also be legal scholars who are offended by the terms of so-called superinjunctions, but the only stuff cited in the section are press reports. Without commenting on the press's gripes, which may indeed be legitimate, there seems to be a conflict with the press's reporting of these injunctions. This particular article is not really supposed to be about criticism of specific injunctions, but simply descriptions of the different kinds of injunctions in different countries, and those descriptions shouldn't devolve into pro-and-con discussions of the policy behind the injunctions. Now, all of what I've said doesn't really address whether your sentence belongs in the section, but each expansion of the section, even if in and of itself not obviously problematic, exacerbates the problem. That said, I'm going to leave in the sentence, but I'm going to reword it to make it clear who credits the coinage.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the Trafigura affair in 2009 is what set off the modern super-injunction, as nobody had come across the concept before then. Roy Greenslade is a respected media commentator and closely associated with The Guardian, so his explanation of the origin of the word can be seen as a reliable source. In this article, media lawyer Duncan Lamont writes: "Put simply, a super-injunction means the claimant cannot be identified. It was argued that if the press could say that footballer X had obtained an injunction against lap-dancer Y, people would assume that sex was involved even if it wasn't. To work - to protect the claimant and his family - it had to be anonymised (the "super" bit)."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people like to italicize quotes (griping)? It's not "clear" to me, but I already made my points above. I like the Channel 4 article you cite, though, because at least it comes from a lawyer rather than from a journalist.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK super injunctions and Scotland

Do UK-wide super injunctions exist? Are English court injunctions enforceable in Scotland against Scottish-based publishers? Have any supposed UK-wide super injuctions ever been ignored by Scottish-based publishers? It would be good if any legal eagles could clarify this.--ML5 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this was covered McNae's essential law for journalists. Basicaly the answer is technicaly they don't apply to a scotish publisher but in the real world enough coppies would get into england to put the publisher in breach of english law.©Geni 20:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot to be added to this article over the UK superinjunctions. 92.7.205.127 (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to avoid WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, but it does need to explain what the term means, given the current controversies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super injunction "controversy"

One editor (and probably others as I recall) want to put in language about the "controversy" over the use of super injunctions. There is already an article about that. There is a link to the article in the See also section of this article. This article is about legal instruments and what they do. It is NOT an appropriate place to discuss their "controversial" use. We already have examples of the use of super injunctions in the article. It's enough. Let it sit in the other articles. We don't need it here. This shouldn't be a controversial article. It's definitions of legal terms.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that it is controversial is part of describing its definition. so you prefer a EL at the end rather than a link in the body of the article in context? why do you undo referenced statements? do you reserve the right to undo any differing way to link to that article, or will you accept a consensus? Slowking4 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its supposed controversial use has nothing to do with its definition. If you can obtain a consensus for inserting the controversy in the article, fine, but I'm not sure whether we would agree on whether a consensus has been achieved. Still, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Let's see what others have to say first.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure precisely what the problem is here, but the fact that any "super injunction" is of disputed morality (and legality outside the Commonwealth) is inherent in the definition. The specific misuses of it may or may not be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I don't agree with your statement. I'm not aware of injunctions that are enforceable outside a particular jurisdiction, and the "disputed morality" is tautological because it revolves back to the controversy itself. That said, I'm okay with your solution, putting a see also in the section (as opposed to the main that Slowking put in) and of course removing it from the see also section.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will not be long until the secrecy can be circumnavigated by translation into another language. Especially when it comes to banned books like the one about the late Michael Loch McGurk there will be temptation. The censors must have had some really interesting things to protect. The following page is not easily accessed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law. 121.209.56.25 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

53 Superinjunctions and anonymised privacy injunctions

The number of them is kinda relivant or we wouldn't bother including the guardian number. The recent report by judges agrees feeling the need to state that only two have been issues since the john terry one. The private eye number is the most up to date number we have and probably the most comprehensive. They've been involved with these things for years. The Michael Napier and Trafigura cases probably being the most obvious examples. Given how extensive Private eye's contacts are and how well they know the area we are not going to get a better source unless the courts themselves cough up the number.©Geni 21:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that Private eye probably have the most comprehensive view of the area not just because they've been fighting the things for years.

First, I don't think the Guardian information belongs in this article. Second, at least the assertion in the WP article quotes the Guardian as saying "as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months." Your assertion doesn't give any context for the 53. Third, Private Eye is not a reliable source. It's a political/opinion/satiric magazine. All of this stuff - to the extent it belongs anywhere - belongs in 2011 British super-injunction controversy, not here. I'm going to revert you one more time and ask you not to edit-war but to obtain consensus for your edit before reinserting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian text has been in the article since the 3rd of april and in fact you edited it into it's current form. Since it's just a datapoint I'm failing to see the need for context. It's a bit like asking for context in the boiling point of tin. Bits of Private Eye are a reliable source. The first page is part of the stuff that is a reliable source. When it's an area they are very familiar with it's about as reliable as you are going to get from pretty much any media source.©Geni 22:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you put the Private Eye stuff in the Controversy article rather than this one? I don't see you trying to add it there, even though that's the logical place for it.

Saying something is "as reliable as you are going to get" is not the same as saying it meets Wikipedia's reliability requirements. Unhappily, I have been pushed into permitting a little about the controversy in this article, but you want to add more. If you can get consensus for putting in the Private Eye stuff here, then I would recommend replacing the Guardian information with the Private Eye information so we keep the amount of controversy data here to an absolute minimum. But first you'll have to get some consensus on the issues I've raised.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have adressed the issues you raised and you have failed to defend them. That rather negates your case.©Geni 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point of view, but your opinion is hardly a consensus on anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super-injunctions - The trust fund/libel case, and hyper-injunctions.

If the trust-fund case used as an example of a super-injunction is ZAM v CFW & Anor [2011 EWHC 476 (QB)], it should be noted that this is an anonymised injunction not a super-injunction. If it were a super-injunction, the judgment wouldn't have been published.

There's also some significant debate about whether or not hyper-injunctions are really that big a deal (or exist), from a legal point of view. Looking through the Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions (I get the feeling I'm the only person to have actually read it, but never mind), the committee noted that a normal injunction will usually cover talking to an MP (as injunctions tend to cover talking to anyone). Instructed lawyers are exempt under client/attorney privilege (and so do not have to be specified) and so either MPs are covered by parliamentary privilege (in which case, it doesn't matter if they're specified - you can still talk to them) or they're not (in which case it doesn't matter either, as you can't talk to them, specified or not).

There seem to be only 3 examples where MPs have been specified (and one wasn't in a court order) and "there is no available evidence that ... the court was seeking to limit the application of the protection afforded to constituents." (6.19 of the report; although 6.9-6.22 are all worth a read) Basically, a court couldn't restrict parliamentary privilege if it wanted to - that's the whole point of it. --Duke (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia injunction paragraph

An anon has re-added the paragraph:

Controversy arises when the information that the press may not publish is freely available from other sources, such as the internet. The Wikipedia article 2011 British super-injunction controversy details how the footballer Ryan Giggs is alleged to have had an affair with Welsh model Imogen Thomas, and that he sought and obtained a superinjunction to prevent the publication of this information.

I've removed it as an unsourced self-reference, as there is no indication, even in the referenced Wikipedia article, that Wikipedia was the source, or even an conduit, for the leak of the name, before it was published in reliable sources. The Twitter reference to another injunction might better fit there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Hyper-injunctions'

I note that a page was created on Hyper-injunctions in English law. I redirected that page to this one, since it was a stub and likely to remain so: the term 'hyper-injunction' doesn't seem to have caught on, and even if it was considered notable there would still be virtually nothing to say about them. The nature of the subject matter means there's basically no information about 'hyper-injunctions' in reliable sources. What there is is already adequately covered in this article. Robofish (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Injunction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110616111929/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44466&c=1 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44466&c=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Injunction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424125243/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23943177-law-is-badly-in-need-of-reform-as-celebrities-hide-secrets.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23943177-law-is-badly-in-need-of-reform-as-celebrities-hide-secrets.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References vs. Footnotes

I see that a lot of content has been added to the references section, resulting in some very long and (in comparison to other articles) oddly formatted footnotes. I suggest that as an alternative, this sort of exposition based upon material that may be relevant yet not appropriate to add to the body of the article, be added in the form of footnotes. Arllaw (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]