What does the rule of 'balance of convenience' pertain to in the context of interlocutory injunctions?

The concept of the 'balance of convenience' is fundamental in the context of interlocutory injunctions, as it involves weighing the potential harm or detriment that might be suffered by both the plaintiff and the defendant if the injunction were to be granted or refused.

In considering whether to grant an interlocutory injunction, the court assesses which party would suffer greater harm in the periods leading up to the final resolution of the case. The evaluation focuses on the immediate consequences of granting an injunction, and the decision aims to minimize irreparable harm or injustice. Essentially, the court seeks to protect the legal rights and interests of both parties while considering the relative severity of the potential impacts on each.

Considering the other options, jurisdiction pertains to whether the court has the legal authority to hear the case, which is a separate matter from the balance of convenience. The need for a trial is also independent of the balance of convenience, as the court can still resolve equity matters through interlocutory injunctions without needing a full trial immediately. Finally, while cost is an important factor in litigation decisions, it does not directly relate to how the balance of convenience is assessed in the context of injunctions.