What test is used to determine the granting of interlocutory injunctions?

The appropriate test used to determine the granting of interlocutory injunctions is the existence of a prima facie case coupled with the balance of convenience. This test is well-established in Queensland law and is fundamental in the consideration of whether to grant such injunctions before the final resolution of a matter.

A prima facie case requires the applicant to show that there is a sufficient likelihood that they will succeed at trial; this threshold is not overly high, but it necessitates a foundation of merit to the claim.

The balance of convenience refers to weighing the potential harm to both parties if the injunction is granted or denied. The court assesses which party would suffer greater harm from the granting of the injunction versus the harm that could arise from its refusal. This balance is crucial, as it informs the court's discretion based on the circumstances surrounding the case.

In contrast, the other options do not encompass the established legal framework for granting interlocutory injunctions. Proof of harm and likelihood of success, while significant, does not comprehensively address the necessary legal threshold and balancing test. A cost-benefit analysis lacks the focus on legal rights and the assessment of convenience that the established test provides. The presence of material facts and precedence is overly broad and does not specifically