Short answer. You must establish that you are entitled to the relief demanded and it involves restraining or compelling an act; that allowing the act, or its non-performance, to continue during litigation would probably work injustice to you; or that someone is doing or threatening to do something that probably violates your rights and would render the eventual judgment ineffectual.

What the law says

A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

Rule 58, Section 3 — Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. Read the full provision →

Three separate grounds, not a single cumulative test

Rule 58, Section 3 lists three distinct grounds on which a preliminary injunction may be granted, phrased as alternatives connected by "or" between the second and third. This means an applicant does not necessarily need to satisfy every single ground — establishing any one of the three can support issuance of the injunction, though a court weighing the application will still look at how strong the showing is on whichever ground the applicant actually relies on.

Ground one: entitlement to relief that is itself restraint or compulsion

The first ground focuses on the applicant's underlying entitlement to the relief demanded in the case, where that relief itself consists, wholly or partly, of restraining an act or requiring an act to be performed, whether for a limited period or perpetually. Here the injunction essentially anticipates the final relief the applicant is already seeking, functioning as a provisional version of the very remedy the main case is meant to deliver.

Grounds two and three: preventing injustice or a hollow judgment

The second ground looks at the harm of inaction: whether letting the complained-of act, or the failure to act, continue during litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant. The third ground is more specific, targeting conduct that probably violates the applicant's rights concerning the subject of the case and tends to render the eventual judgment ineffectual — protecting against a win that arrives too late to matter.

Why any one ground is enough

Structuring the grounds as alternatives, rather than requiring an applicant to prove all three together, reflects that a preliminary injunction can be justified by different kinds of urgency — sometimes the harm is the disruption of continuing conduct, sometimes it is the risk that the eventual judgment will come too late to matter. Requiring proof of every ground at once would make the remedy far harder to obtain than the underlying risks it is meant to address actually warrant.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.