SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 532 (17 May 2024)

SportsDirect.com Retail Ltd v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 532 (17 May 2024)

Although Sports Direct established a serious case to be tried, the balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages for both parties justified the Tribunal's refusal of interim relief; the Tribunal's error in disregarding contested facts did not affect the outcome as the balance of convenience lay with Newcastle United.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 532
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited; Defendant/respondent: Newcastle United Football Club Limited; Defendant/respondent: Newcastle United Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Expedited Application for Permission to Appeal (interim Injunction, Competition Law) / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Interim Injunctions, Refusal to Supply, Exclusive Distribution Agreements, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Competition Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Dominant Position Interim Injunctions Refusal to Supply Exclusive Distribution Agreements Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited

Claimant/appellant

Newcastle United Football Club Limited

Defendant/respondent

Newcastle United Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Expedited Application for Permission to Appeal (interim Injunction, Competition Law) / Appeal From Competition Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sports Direct established a serious case to be tried for abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive arrangements under the Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test for interim relief
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party

Ratio Decidendi

Although Sports Direct established a serious case to be tried, the balance of convenience and inadequacy of damages for both parties justified the Tribunal's refusal of interim relief; the Tribunal's error in disregarding contested facts did not affect the outcome as the balance of convenience lay with Newcastle United.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to Sports Direct.
  • Appeal dismissed; interim injunction refused.