You wake up one morning and look out your window to discover your neighbour about to cut down an old cedar hedge separating your two properties. The hedge is on your side of the property boundary and you have never discussed its removal with your neighbour.

You rush outside and tell the neighbour to stop, but he tells you, "I'm cutting this hedge down. It is on my side of the boundary and I want it gone."

The hedge is at least 40 years old and cannot be replaced with another mature, full hedge. Is there anything you can do, legally, to prevent the hedge on your property from being destroyed?

Sadly, property owners often find themselves in situations in which their property is at immediate risk of damage or dissipation by the wrongful acts of others.

A civil action often takes many months to proceed to trial and, by that time, the property at risk may have been destroyed or damaged to the point where a trial judgement is of little use.

In these situations, the law provides an important remedy whereby the status quo can be maintained awaiting trial the injunction.

In the appropriate circumstances, the court will order a party to do a specific act (a mandatory injunction) or refrain from doing a specific act (a prohibitory injunction) in relation to the property in question until the matter is finally determined at trial.

The party seeking the injunction (usually the plaintiff) must meet certain requirements in order to establish entitlement to the injunction.

First, the plaintiff must provide an undertaking to the court that it will compensate the defendant for any damages as a result of granting the injunction.

In such circumstances, the plaintiff will have to compensate the defendant only if the defendant is successful at trial and has suffered monetary loss as a result of the injunction being granted.

Second, the plaintiff must present evidence to show that the threatened injury to the property is certain or imminent. It is not sufficient that the threatened injury is merely a possibility.

And, third, the plaintiff must show the court that there is a "serious question to be tried". In other words, the plaintiff must prove to the court that there is a real possibility that he or she will be successful at trial.

In our hedge example, the plaintiff would present evidence in the form of deeds, boundary surveys and the like to prove that the hedge is located on his or her side of the boundary line.

This would show that the neighbour is not the owner of the hedge and not entitled in law to trespass onto the property and cut it down.

The court will determine whether the "balance of convenience" lies in favour or against granting the injunction.

In a situation such as our hedge example, where the defendant is clearly trespassing and threatening to destroy property belonging to the plaintiff, the balance of convenience tilts significantly to the plaintiff's side.

When one is faced with a situation where an injunction is the appropriate remedy, immediate steps must be taken. Practically, delay may result in the property being damaged or dissipated irreparably.

Legally, the court may decline to grant an injunction if the plaintiff has taken too long to seek relief. The court may determine that the plaintiff has acquiesced, given his or her implied consent to the actions of the defendant.

Short of acquiescence, the court may decline to grant the injunction simply because of the delay of the plaintiff in coming to court to seek relief.

The court will often permit a party to apply for an injunction on an ex parte basis in cases of urgency. In the ordinary course, the plaintiff would have to provide the defendant with notice of an application, but applications for injunctions can be heard without notice to the defendant for two very important reasons.

Firstly, the plaintiff must proceed to court immediately to prevent the imminent possibility that the property will be damaged.

Secondly, if the defendant were to receive notice of the application for an injunction, he or she may simply proceed to commit the illegal act as quickly as possible before the court order is granted.

If you find yourself in a situation where an injunction is the appropriate legal remedy, contact an attorney immediately so that he or she can look at the particular facts of the case and take preventative action as soon as possible.

Attorney Kevin Taylor is a member of the Commercial Litigation Team within the Litigation Group of Appleby Spurling Hunter. A copy of Mr. Taylor's column can be found on the Appleby Spurling Hunter website at www.applebyglobal.com. This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Before proceeding with any matters described herein, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.