Serious issue to be tried meaning

Private actions Court of Appeal dismisses Sports Direct’s appeal regarding CAT’s refusal to grant injunction about the supply of Newcastle United replica kit The Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment in SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd & Anor, arising from an application challenging the CAT’s ruling of 12 April 2024 that declined to grant Sports Direct an interim injunction compelling Newcastle United Football Company Limited and Newcastle United Limited (together, Newcastle United) to provide Sports Direct with replica football kit (the CAT’s 2024 ruling). The Court of Appeal upheld the CAT’s 2024 ruling, dismissing Sports Direct’s appeal, but determined that the CAT was wrong to conclude there was no serious issue to be tried...

Isabel dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 What are the practical implications of this case? When applying for, or seeking to oppose or set aside, freezing orders, practitioners should keep the following practical points in mind: There is no longer any requirement to prepare to satisfy both versions of the ‘good arguable case’ test for freezing orders; a single test now applies. The ‘good arguable case’ threshold is to be treated as equivalent to the ‘serious issue to be tried’ test used for other forms of interim injunction applications (following American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] 1 All ER 504) and it does not impose a higher burden. ...

Practical implications It is widely accepted that the prime authority on prohibitory injunctions is the House of Lords ruling in American Cyanamid, which lays down broad criteria the court should ordinarily address when deciding whether to grant such relief. In exercising its discretion, the court will ask: Is there a serious issue to be tried? Would compensation be an adequate remedy? Where does the balance of convenience fall? Is this an exceptional case? The present decision examines the particular situation in which an employer seeks to uphold a restrictive covenant through an injunction, though the analysis could arguably extend to most cases where a respondent proposes to do exactly what he has freely promised not to do. By way of illustration, similar reasoning could arguably be applied to non-compete terms in a commercial agreement. In those circumstances: the default position is that a prohibitory injunction ought to be granted it is no obstacle to relief that...

This Practice Note examines the American Cyanamid test used by the courts to determine whether to grant temporary injunctive relief. It sets out the sources of the court’s authority and the principles that inform a judge’s discretion when considering an interim injunction application under those guidelines. For wider guidance on injunctive relief, including the distinction between interim and final, and between prohibitory and mandatory orders, see Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles. For interim remedies focused on preserving assets and/or evidence, see: Freezing injunctions—guiding principles Proprietary freezing injunctions Search and imaging orders—guiding principles Interim delivery up orders and preservation of property This content should also be read in conjunction with: Interim injunctions—on notice applications Interim injunctions—without notice applications Interim injunctions—drafting the order Guiding principles for interim injunctions The jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions arises from section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and CPR 25.1(1)(a), as outlined in Practice Note: Injunctions—guiding principles—The...

This Practice Note outlines the matters a court will weigh on an application where a party wishes either to found or to dispute the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (the English courts) in issue. There are three central requirements: a genuinely triable issue must exist; the claimant must show a good arguable case; and the English courts must be the appropriate forum for resolving the parties’ dispute in question, between them. This Note cites the decision in AK Investment v Kyrgyz Mobil, which some law reports record, in certain series, simply as Altimo Holdings & Investment Ltd v Kyrgyz Mobil Tel Ltd. Why is jurisdiction an important issue? The significance of confirming the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim before it has been examined in many authorities across the jurisprudence extensively. A concise overview appears in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mashate v Kagute (2012), which held that it is paramount for the court to ensure that following principles are upheld: ...

It should be borne in mind that Brussels I (recast) may still be pertinent to proceedings issued on or after 1 January 2021, where they are connected to earlier proceedings begun before that date (see Articles 29 to 31 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)). Defining and identifying jurisdiction Jurisdiction denotes the authority of a court, for our purposes in England and Wales, to hear and decide a claim. It is separate from the governing law of the claim. The courts of England and Wales may have jurisdiction to hear a claim, but this does not invariably mean that the applicable law is English law. For guidance on the various regimes for determining the applicable law, see Practice Note: Choice of law in foreign accident claims. Jurisdiction concerns whether the claim can properly be brought in England and Wales. There are clear benefits for an individual living in England and Wales in issuing a claim there, including convenience and cost. The test for establishing...

[ Date ] [ Client's name and address ] Dear [ insert client name ] Re: Injunctive relief I write to advise you regarding your intended application for an interim injunction against [ name of party ], sought in order to [ insert reason for and type of injunctive relief being sought ]. An injunction is a court order that compels a party to carry out a particular act (a mandatory injunction) or prevents a party from undertaking a particular act (a prohibitory injunction), either compelling performance or restraining conduct. The purpose of an interim injunction is to preserve the existing position and/or reduce potential unfairness ahead of a claim or issue being resolved. When deciding whether to grant such relief, the court will consider whether, among other matters: there is a serious issue to be tried; damages would probably be an adequate remedy for any loss that might be suffered if the injunction were refused; granting relief...