(Rossini 1998, p. 50; Longley & James 1999, p. 112). In granting remedies, the following are taken into account: mutuality, supervision, impossibility, hardship, conduct of the plaintiff, vagueness, and mistake (Suff 1997, p. 125)
One of the most important and most commonly employed remedies in civil litigation is injunction, which Eden and Waterman (2008, p. v) described to be reputably practical, diversely extensive, and essentially harmonising, that it merits an in-depth discussion.
Just like the other two types of remedy – certiorari and prohibition, but unlike a declaration, an injunction is essentially a coercive remedy. It is a court order that requires a party to discontinue certain activity, much more although rarely, even compels a party to perform a specific act, essentially, ‘to protect plaintiff from irreparable injury’ (Rossini 1998, p. 50; Longley & James 1999, p. 113). However, Grant (2005, p. 220) explained, that since injunctions are equitable reliefs, courts are understandably more disinclined and are more careful to their issuances unless proven they are really necessary or of extreme urgency, and that determination of which requires ‘proper exercise, judicial learning, good sense, decision, integrity and discretion’ (Eden and Waterman 2008, p. v).
By giving specific court decisions, Sufrin and Jones (2008, p. 1352) illustrated when and why the English courts have granted and have refused interim relief in cases of competition: For example, in Garden Cottage Foods v. Milk Marketing Board the court withheld granting interim injunction “to prevent an alleged abuse of a dominant position on the grounds that damages would be an adequate remedy.” On the other hand, relief has been granted in Cutsforth v. Mansfield Inns, on the ground that the issue was serious to merit trial and that denying injunction would likely leave the claimant out of business and that, damages would not be