SUBSTITUTE NEW PARAGRAPH:  The power of a judge sitting in the High Court to grant an injunction against a party to proceedings properly served arises out of the court's inherent jurisdiction, as confirmed by statute[NOTE 15]. The terms of the statute are expressed in wide terms, providing that the court may grant such injunctions "where it appears to the court to be just and convenient so to do".  However, as a matter of settled practice the court will only exercise that jurisdiction in limited circumstances[NOTE 16].  In particular, the right to an interim injunction cannot exist in isolation, but is always incidental to and dependant upon the enforcement of a substantive right which usually (although not invariably) takes the shape of a cause of action[NOTE 17].

SUBSTITUTE NEW NOTE 15:  See Fourie v. Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1, at [25] (Lord Scott), [1], [5], [44] and [47].  The High Court's jurisdiction is currently confirmed by the Supreme Court Act 1981, s.37(1).  The statutory forebears of s.37(1) were the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 s.25(8), and the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, s.45(1).  Those statutory provisions confirm the High Court's existing jurisdiciton, as appears from s.16 of the 1873 Act and s.19(2)(b) of the 1981 Act.  The court also has a statutory jurisdiciton in aid of foreign proceedings, and in aid of arbitrations.  It may grant interim relief in respect of proceedings on foot in another state which is either a party to the Brussels or Lugano Conventions, or which is a Regulation State within the meaning of s.25(1) the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (as amended), provided that two conditions are satisfied.  The first condition is that the foreign claim must be such that the relief sought in England can be identified as interim relief in relation to the final order sought abroad in the proceedings relied on:  Fourie v Le Roux and others [2007] UKHL 1 at [31].  The second condition is that there must be a real connecting link between the relief sought and the English court's territorial jurisdiction: Van Uden Maritime BV v. KG Deco-Line [1999] Q.B. 1225. In relation to arbitrations governed by the Arbitration Act 1996, the court has power (unless the parties agree otherwise) to grant interim injunctions (see Arbitration Act 1996, s.44(1) & 44(2).  Applications under Arbitration Act 1996 s.44 must normally be made on notice; but in urgent cases an application for a freezing order or search order may be made ex parte:  Arbitration Act 1996, sections 44(4) and 44(3); Cetelem S.A. v. Roust Holdings Ltd.  

NOTE 16: These limitations are as to the exercise of the court's jurisdiction rather than its extent:  see Fourie v. Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1 at [25] and [30]; also Albon (t/a NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd [2007] EWCA Civ 1124 at [7].

NOTE 17:  ADD:  In respect of a cause of action arising within England and Wales, it would be difficult to justify the grant of interim injunctive relief without the issue of substantive proceedings or an undertaking to do so:  Fourie v Le Roux [2007] UKHL 1, at [32].  Consequently, whenever an interlocutiry injunction is applied for, the judge (if otherwise minded to grant the order) should, as a matter of good practice, pay careful attention to the substantive relief that is (or will be) sought:  Fourie, at [33].