The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case warranting the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The evidence did not demonstrate that the disciplinary process was so flawed as to justify judicial intervention at the interlocutory stage. The applicant did not show that he would suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, especially since he had already sought damages in the main suit. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the public interest required the position of Director, Compliance and Enforcement to be filled without undue delay. The court applied the principles in Giella v Cassman Brown and found that none of the requirements for an injunction were satisfied. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.