Sportfive UK Limited v Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited

Sportfive UK Limited v Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited

The court found there is a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged breach and termination of the exclusive agency agreement. The balance of convenience favours the claimant, as damages would not be an adequate remedy for potential reputational and goodwill losses. The mandatory and prohibitory relief sought does not require ongoing supervision or cooperation and is appropriate to preserve the status quo pending trial. The claimant is entitled to interim injunctive relief without the need to fortify the cross-undertaking in damages.

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 Contractual Dispute / Interim Application for Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Interim injunctive relief granted in favour of the claimant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Exclusive Agency Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Interim Injunctions Specific Performance Breach of Contract Exclusive 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sportfive UK Limited

Claimant/applicant

Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contractual Dispute / Interim Application for Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding breach and termination of the exclusive agency agreement
  2. 2 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted, including mandatory and prohibitory orders
  3. 3 Whether specific performance is an appropriate remedy given the need for supervision and cooperation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found there is a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged breach and termination of the exclusive agency agreement. The balance of convenience favours the claimant, as damages would not be an adequate remedy for potential reputational and goodwill losses. The mandatory and prohibitory relief sought does not require ongoing supervision or cooperation and is appropriate to preserve the status quo pending trial. The claimant is entitled to interim injunctive relief without the need to fortify the cross-undertaking in damages.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctive relief granted in favour of the claimant.

Orders

  • The defendant is restrained from using, selling, licensing, letting, or otherwise disposing of any advertising space on the advertising sites without the claimant's prior written consent.
  • The defendant is restrained from changing the specification, location, or operability of the advertising boards and LED display.