Sportfive UK Ltd v Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited [2022] EWHC 3522 (Comm) (22 July 2022)

Sportfive UK Ltd v Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited [2022] EWHC 3522 (Comm) (22 July 2022)

There is a serious question to be tried regarding the validity and termination of the contract and the claimant's rights to exclusive advertising. The balance of convenience favours the claimant, as damages would not be an adequate remedy for loss of goodwill and reputational harm, whereas the defendant's losses (if any) can be compensated by damages. The mandatory relief sought does not require ongoing supervision or cooperation to a degree that would preclude specific performance or interim relief.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3522 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Sportfive UK Limited; Defendant/respondent: Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Interim Injunction Application / Interim Relief Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in favour of the claimant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Agency Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Interim Injunctions Specific Performance Breach of Contract Agency Agreements

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sportfive UK Limited

Claimant/applicant

Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Interim Injunction Application / Interim Relief Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to interim injunctive relief to enforce exclusive advertising rights under an agency agreement
  2. 2 Whether the contract was lawfully terminated by the defendant
  3. 3 Whether specific performance is an appropriate remedy given the need for supervision and cooperation

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried regarding the validity and termination of the contract and the claimant's rights to exclusive advertising. The balance of convenience favours the claimant, as damages would not be an adequate remedy for loss of goodwill and reputational harm, whereas the defendant's losses (if any) can be compensated by damages. The mandatory relief sought does not require ongoing supervision or cooperation to a degree that would preclude specific performance or interim relief.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in favour of the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant is restrained from selling, licensing, letting, or otherwise disposing of advertising space on the advertising sites to third parties.
  • Defendant is required to permit the claimant to use the advertising boards and LED display and not to obstruct or interfere with such use.