You don’t understand what a preliminary injunction is then.
It’s a very, very strong indication that they will win. Courts don’t issue preliminary injunctions unless it’s extremely likely the side who won the preliminary injunction will win.
Huh, I thought in USA they also did them to avoid an injunction having the effect of making the judgement irrelevant. So, where the case is not clear cut the injunction could prevent one party acting to 'kill' the other (and so avoid judgement) in the meantime?
Could you cite something on this that indicates this (my understanding here) is wrong?
It only requires a “substantial” likelihood that side will win (not an “extreme” one), which basically means there’s a substantive dispute. The more difficult criterion is a substantial likelihood that irreparable harm will occur if the injunction isn’t granted (irreparable harm is supposed to be a pretty extreme thing — it means you can’t fix it with any amount of money).
It’s a very, very strong indication that they will win. Courts don’t issue preliminary injunctions unless it’s extremely likely the side who won the preliminary injunction will win.