In a challenge to the entry of a permanent injunction relating to the blocking of a shared right of way, heard as an appeal of an interlocutory order pursuant to 4 V.I.C. § 33(b)(1), it was not an abuse of discretion to enter an injunction, and because only an express easement was alleged in the complaint, it was not error for the Superior Court to summarily reject a claim for recognition of an implied easement before entering this relief. However, the injunction was overbroad as originally entered, since its language was not narrowly tailored to fit the circumstances. This case is remanded for reconsideration of the scope of the injunction in light of this opinion.