In this morning's news...US arbitrator Judge Daniel Weinstein has granted an injunction to compel a third boxing bout between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder.  

I've never been instructed to seek an injunction to compel a fight before, I'll be honest.... but the concept of an injunction to compel performance or restrain breach of a contract, such as that that apparently exists between Wilder and Fury, is well established in English law/procedure. With the important caveat that the threatened harm must be harm that could not be compensated by an award of damages. 

In Wilder v Fury, the injunction was awarded in an arbitration. In England, an injunction will often be an interim remedy, by application to the Court on an urgent basis and before a full trial can take place.  The Court must weigh up the competing interests of the parties - the relative inconvenience/harm of the injunction being in place and of it being declined - known as the "balance of convenience" test. 

While not an available remedy in every case, in the right case an injunction is a extremely powerful tool in the litigation arsenal.  It stops the harm from accumulating, preserves the status quo... holds the ring. As in Wilder v Fury, the injunction marks the start, not the end of the fight. Round 1, and the Claimant must be ready and willing to continue through the rounds, with its substantive action.  But in some cases, once in place and having focussed minds, an interim injunction can prove to be the knock out blow that delivers a final resolution. 

NB:  Specialist advice is essential for anyone contemplating an application for injunctive relief and the application should be brought promptly - delay can be fatal.