Choose injunctions and damages for tort
Distinguish stopping conduct, requiring action and interim protection, and explain discretionary remedy choice.
Section Paper 4 · Law of tort
Exam scope and assessment notes
A Level · section 4.4.2. Original educational scenarios about the law of England and Wales, checked on 14 October 2026. Model answers are formative reasoning, not advice about a real dispute, Cambridge marks or predicted grades. Read the exact statute, case and exam-year source where a rule is disputed or changes. A larger annotated authority bank, full unseen papers and specialist law-teacher review remain outstanding.
Before you begin
- Read a short source carefully and separate its rule from the facts
- Explain which element a fact supports and what is still uncertain
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
What should a legal problem answer connect?
What you will learn
- Explain prohibitory, mandatory and interlocutory injunctions
- Evaluate damages in lieu and competing interests
Match the order to the interference
A prohibitory injunction restrains conduct; a mandatory injunction requires a step such as removing an ongoing obstruction. An interlocutory or interim order addresses protection pending trial rather than finally deciding the claim. The legal tests and practical consequences differ; avoid calling all of them automatic orders to pay money.
For interim relief the court considers the relevant merits threshold, adequacy of damages, balance of convenience and procedural protections; mandatory relief can require particular caution. The final merits are not assumed merely because an interim application is made. Evidence and a workable order remain essential.
Evaluate final remedy and alternatives
An injunction is discretionary. Continuing nuisance or trespass can support it, but scope, hardship, third-party/public interests and the adequacy of damages need examination. Coventry v Lawrence rejects treating a rigid traditional damages-in-lieu approach as an unqualified restriction on discretion. Planning permission or public benefit may matter to remedy without automatically making the tort lawful.
Damages in lieu can compensate where an injunction would otherwise address continuing interference, but should not be described as a guaranteed licence to commit any tort. Compare monetary redress with effective prevention, enforcement cost and the claimant's interest in enjoying land or rights without repeated claims. State the legal basis, duration and practical compliance demanded.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Does an interim injunction automatically decide the final merits?
Worked example
A proved continuing obstruction occupies a neighbour's land. Compare removing it with merely promising money for future interference.
Show the worked solution
- Removal requires positive action.
- That is a mandatory-relief structure.
- Assess discretion and whether damages adequately protect the right.
Answer A removal order is the structure of a mandatory injunction. The court still needs the relevant merits and discretionary assessment; a monetary substitute is not automatically sufficient or automatically excluded.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Classify an order requiring removal of the continuing obstruction.
Give me a hint
It requires a positive step.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify required removal.
- Use mandatory injunction.
- Preserve merits and discretion.
The proposed order is mandatory because it requires removal. Its availability depends on the relevant claim, proof and discretionary considerations, not merely choosing that label.
Look for these in your work
- Identifies step
- Uses correct type
- Preserves assessment
Independent: A requested order temporarily stops an alleged activity until trial. What must not be assumed?
Give me a hint
Temporary protection differs from final liability.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify interim duration.
- Apply the relevant interim tests.
- Preserve the later merits decision.
An interim order does not automatically establish final liability. The application requires its own merits threshold, adequacy-of-damages and balance analysis, while trial or final resolution remains distinct.
Look for these in your work
- Uses duration
- Uses interim tests
- Separates merits
Application: A beneficial public activity commits proved nuisance. Does social benefit automatically remove the tort or guarantee damages instead of an injunction?
Give me a hint
Liability and remedy are separate decisions.
Compare my reasoning
- Preserve the proved nuisance.
- Use public interest in remedy discretion.
- Compare prevention and compensation.
Public benefit does not automatically erase proved nuisance or dictate the remedy. It can inform the discretionary balance between an injunction and damages in lieu, alongside the claimant's rights, practical protection and other circumstances.
Look for these in your work
- Separates liability
- Uses discretion
- Compares remedies
Common mistakes
- Treating interim relief as a final verdict
- Assuming public benefit defeats liability
- Treating damages as a universal tort licence
What can you explain now?
Does an interim injunction automatically decide the final merits?
Compare with the explanation
No
It protects pending trial under its own tests rather than automatically proving the final claim.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Does an interim injunction automatically decide the final merits?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.