Unique Pub Properties Ltd v Roddy & Ors [2018] EWHC 4019 (Ch) (21 November 2018)

Unique Pub Properties Ltd v Roddy & Ors [2018] EWHC 4019 (Ch) (21 November 2018)

The claimant demonstrated a high degree of assurance of success at trial in enforcing the lease's purchasing obligation. The defendants' competition law defence faces significant legal and evidential obstacles, and damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant. The balance of convenience strongly favours granting the interim injunction.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 4019 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Unique Pub Properties Ltd; First Defendant: Michael James Roddy; Second Defendant: Brenda Roddy; Third Defendant: Rebecca Roddy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Pre Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted
Legal Topics
Exclusive Purchasing Obligations, Interim Injunctions, Lease Enforcement, Competition Act 1998 S.2, Mandatory Injunctions
Competition Law Contract Law Exclusive Purchasing Obligations Interim Injunctions Lease Enforcement Competition Act 1998 S.2 Mandatory Injunctions

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unique Pub Properties Ltd

Claimant

Michael James Roddy

First Defendant

Brenda Roddy

Second Defendant

Rebecca Roddy

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchasing obligation in the lease is void and unenforceable under s.2(1) Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether an interim mandatory injunction should be granted to enforce the lease terms

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant demonstrated a high degree of assurance of success at trial in enforcing the lease's purchasing obligation. The defendants' competition law defence faces significant legal and evidential obstacles, and damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant. The balance of convenience strongly favours granting the interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted

Orders

  • Defendants must buy from the claimant or its nominated supplier all tied drinks to be sold as part of the business and must not bring onto the property any tied drinks not supplied by the claimant or its nominated supplier.