A Singapore company director who has just been refused an interim injunction is in a genuinely awkward position. The counterparty the company wanted restrained, whether a shareholder, a former business partner, or a contractual counterparty, is now free to act while the company considers an appeal. By the time the appeal is heard, months later, the very thing the company feared (a disposal of assets, a completed transaction, or the enforcement of a disputed resolution) may already be done, and the appeal will have become academic. This is precisely the gap that an Erinford injunction is designed to fill.
This article explains what an Erinford injunction is, how it differs from both an ordinary interim injunction and a stay of execution, and what a Singapore company director needs to do, procedurally and financially, to apply for one while an appeal is pending.
What Is an Erinford Injunction?
An Erinford injunction takes its name from the English case of Erinford Properties Ltd v Cheshire County Council [1974] 2 WLR 749, in which Megarry J granted an injunction to preserve the position between the parties pending an appeal, even though the plaintiff’s original application for an injunction had just been refused. The principle recognised in that case, and applied by the courts here, is straightforward in concept: a party who has lost an interim injunction application and genuinely intends to appeal should not automatically be left exposed to irreversible action by the other side before the appeal can be heard.
It is important for a company director to understand that this is a distinct and separate remedy from two things it is often confused with.
Distinct from an ordinary interim injunction
An ordinary interim (or interlocutory) injunction is sought before or during the main proceedings, to preserve the status quo until the substantive dispute is finally resolved at trial. Our related guide on interim injunctions in Section 216 cases explains how that first-instance test works, including the requirement to show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours relief. An Erinford injunction only becomes relevant after that first application has already failed. It is not a second attempt to argue the merits of the original injunction; it is a narrower, appeal-focused application asking the court to hold the position in place only until the appeal against the refusal is heard and decided.
Distinct from a stay of execution
This is the distinction that trips up many directors. A stay of execution is relevant where there is an existing court order capable of being enforced, for example a money judgment or an order requiring a party to do or stop doing something, and the losing party wants to prevent the winning party from enforcing it while an appeal is pursued. Under the Rules of Court 2021, an appeal does not, by itself, operate as a stay of enforcement; a party must actively apply for one.
An Erinford injunction is different because, in the fact pattern it addresses, there is nothing to “stay”. The company’s application for an interim injunction was refused, so no injunction order exists against the other side at all, and there is nothing to enforce or suspend. What the company actually needs is a fresh, standalone injunction, granted specifically to preserve matters pending the appeal against the refusal. That is the Erinford injunction. Understanding this distinction early saves considerable time, because applying for the wrong remedy will simply be dismissed as misconceived.
The Legal Basis in Singapore
The Erinford principle is not the subject of a standalone Singapore statute. It operates as an application of the High Court’s general power to grant injunctions, combined with the court’s control over its own appellate process. The relevant framework consists of the following.
First, the Supreme Court of Judicature Act gives the General Division of the High Court, the Appellate Division, and the Court of Appeal a broad and general power to grant an injunction in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient to do so. This general equitable jurisdiction, exercised in accordance with established principles, is the statutory root from which an Erinford injunction is granted. It is a wide, discretionary power, not a narrow, prescriptive rule, which is why the courts assess each Erinford application on its own facts.
Second, the Rules of Court 2021, available on Singapore Statutes Online, set out the procedural framework for appeals in Order 19. Order 19, Rule 6 confirms that an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of enforcement of the lower court’s decision, the provision underpinning stay of execution applications and, by contrast, the reason an Erinford injunction is needed for a different situation, namely a refusal rather than a positive order. Order 19, Rule 35 provides that an application to the appellate court in a pending appeal is generally made by summons, the procedural route typically used for an Erinford application once a notice of appeal is on foot.
Third, and most directly relevant, Singapore’s courts have applied the Erinford principle by name in reported decisions. In Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd v China Jingye Engineering Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025] SGHC(A) 3, the Appellate Division of the High Court considered, and ultimately dismissed, an appellant’s application for an Erinford injunction following the refusal of part of its application to restrain a call on a performance bond. The court confirmed that in deciding whether to grant an Erinford injunction, it will consider whether the appeal, if successful, would otherwise be rendered nugatory (that is, pointless, because the harm has already occurred and cannot practically be undone), alongside the relative hardship to each party and whether the appeal has genuine substance rather than being frivolous. The court expressly endorsed Megarry J’s reasoning in the original Erinford Properties case, including the older principle, drawn from Wilson v Church, that a court should try to ensure a party’s undoubted right of appeal is not rendered nugatory by events occurring before the appeal is heard. This confirms that the Erinford principle is a recognised, applied feature of Singapore civil procedure, exercised as an aspect of the general injunction power in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, not merely an imported English concept with no local traction.
Who Can Apply
An Erinford injunction is available to a party, commonly a company, that:
- applied for an interim injunction (for example, to restrain a shareholder from disposing of assets, to stop a counterparty completing a disputed transaction, or to block enforcement of a contested board or shareholder resolution) and had that application refused, in whole or in part;
- genuinely intends to appeal, or has already filed a notice of appeal or an application for permission to appeal, against that refusal; and
- can show that, without interim protection, the other side’s freedom to act in the meantime would render the appeal pointless or would cause harm that cannot later be reversed by an award of damages.
The applicant does not need to prove it will win the appeal outright. The courts, following the Erinford and Ee Hup Construction approach, look for a genuine, non-frivolous appeal and weigh the relative harm each side would suffer, rather than reopening the merits already decided below.
Step-by-Step Process
Step 1: Act immediately after the refusal
An Erinford application only has value if it is made before the counterparty acts on the refusal. In practice, this means raising the request for interim protection with the judge at, or immediately after, the hearing at which the original injunction is refused, or filing the application within hours or days, not weeks.
Step 2: Confirm or commence the appeal
The applicant should be filing, or have already filed, a notice of appeal or an application for permission to appeal against the refusal. The Erinford application is parasitic on a genuine appeal; without one on foot or imminent, there is nothing for the injunction to preserve the position pending.
Step 3: Apply to the appropriate court
The application is usually made first to the judge who refused the original injunction, since that judge is best placed to deal with it urgently and already knows the facts. If unavailable, or having already declined, the application proceeds to the appellate court (the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeal, depending on the intended appeal) by summons, per Order 19 of the Rules of Court 2021.
Step 4: Support the application with evidence
A supporting affidavit must explain the urgency, the intended appeal, and the specific, concrete harm that will occur if the counterparty is left free to act before the appeal is heard. Generalised concern is not enough; the court will want to see why the appeal would otherwise be rendered nugatory.
Step 5: Offer the usual undertakings
As with any interim injunction, the applicant will almost always need to offer an undertaking as to damages, compensating the counterparty if it turns out the injunction should not have been granted. Our companion article on the undertaking as to damages in Singapore injunction applications sets out what this commitment involves and why the court treats it as a near-universal condition of interim relief.
Documents Required
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Supporting affidavit | Sets out the facts, the urgency, the harm that would result if relief is refused, and why the appeal would otherwise be rendered nugatory. |
| Notice of appeal or application for permission to appeal | Evidences that an appeal against the refusal is genuinely on foot or imminent, which is the foundation of the Erinford application. |
| Draft order | Precisely defines the scope and duration of the injunction sought, typically framed to last until the appeal is heard and determined. |
| Undertaking as to damages | The applicant’s formal commitment to compensate the respondent if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. |
| Summons (or originating application) | The formal document commencing the application before the relevant court, per Order 19 of the Rules of Court 2021. |
| Certified copy of the judge’s grounds of decision (if available) | Shows the basis on which the original injunction was refused, which the court considering the Erinford application will need to understand. |
Timeline and Costs
| Stage | Typical timing |
|---|---|
| Application filed | Same day as, or within one to a few days of, the refusal of the original injunction, before the counterparty acts. |
| Urgent hearing | Given the time-sensitive nature of the application, hearings are typically fixed within days, and in genuinely urgent cases can be arranged on very short notice. |
| Duration of the injunction, if granted | Ordinarily framed to last until the appeal is heard and determined, or until further order. |
| Appeal itself | Governed by the timelines in Order 19 of the Rules of Court 2021 for filing the notice of appeal, the record of appeal, and the parties’ written cases, which typically span several months from filing to hearing. |
Costs vary depending on the urgency, the complexity of the underlying dispute, the volume of affidavit evidence, and the seniority of the lawyers instructed. An Erinford application prepared and argued at short notice, often outside normal business hours, will generally cost more per hour of work than a routine, well-telegraphed application. Costs vary; obtain a quote from your solicitor once the facts of your specific situation are known, and ask at the outset how fees are likely to be structured given the urgency involved.
What Happens After the Order
If the Erinford injunction is granted, the status quo between the company and the counterparty is preserved, meaning the counterparty is restrained from taking the disputed action (disposing of the asset, completing the transaction, or enforcing the resolution) until the appeal against the original refusal is heard and decided. The injunction will typically be tied to the undertaking as to damages, so if the company ultimately loses its appeal, or if it later transpires the Erinford injunction should not have been granted, the counterparty may claim compensation for any loss caused by the restraint.
Costs of the Erinford application are usually determined separately from the costs of the substantive appeal, and the outcome can go either way, as the Ee Hup Construction decision illustrates, where the applicant was ultimately unsuccessful and bore the costs consequences. If the appeal against the original refusal succeeds, the Erinford injunction is typically subsumed into whatever substantive injunction the appellate court grants. If the appeal fails, the Erinford injunction lapses and the counterparty is free to act as originally intended, subject to any costs or damages consequences.
Because these applications sit at the intersection of urgent procedural relief and appellate strategy, this is not a step to take without experienced litigation counsel. For related interim relief strategies, see our articles on Mareva injunctions in Singapore company disputes, injunctions to prevent a company disposing of property, and injunctions to restrain breach of a shareholders’ agreement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I get an Erinford injunction if I have not yet filed my notice of appeal?
Generally the court will want to see that an appeal is genuinely intended and imminent, whether through an already-filed notice of appeal, an application for permission to appeal, or a clear statement of intention supported by prompt subsequent filing. Delay in confirming the appeal weakens the application.
Is an Erinford injunction the same as an interim injunction pending appeal?
In substance, yes; “Erinford injunction” is simply the name given to an interim injunction granted specifically to preserve the status quo pending an appeal against the refusal of an earlier interim injunction. The label distinguishes it from an ordinary pre-trial interim injunction and from a stay of execution.
Do I need to show my appeal is likely to succeed?
No. Singapore’s courts, following the reasoning in Ee Hup Construction and the original Erinford Properties case, look for a genuine and non-frivolous appeal, weighed against the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory and the relative hardship to each party, rather than a high probability of success.
What if the counterparty has already acted before I apply?
An Erinford injunction cannot undo an act that has already been completed. This is why speed is essential; if the counterparty has already disposed of the asset or completed the transaction, the company’s remedy shifts to damages or other post-completion relief rather than an injunction preserving a status quo that no longer exists.
Will I have to give an undertaking as to damages?
Almost always. The court will typically require the applicant to undertake to compensate the counterparty for losses caused by the injunction if it later turns out the injunction should not have been granted.
Can a company director apply personally, or must it be the company?
The applicant is whichever party sought and was refused the original interim injunction, which will usually be the company itself rather than an individual director, unless the director was personally a party to the underlying proceedings.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork, ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
Email: [email protected]
Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services