Psychology Press Ltd v Flanagan & Anor [2002] EWHC 1205 (QB) (19 June 2002)

Psychology Press Ltd v Flanagan & Anor [2002] EWHC 1205 (QB) (19 June 2002)

There is a powerfully arguable case that the second defendant was aware of and encouraged a breach of the non-compete clause by the first defendant, the proposed work is likely to compete with the claimant's product, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo by granting an interim injunction until trial. Freedom of expression does not outweigh the contractual rights in this context.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1205 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Psychology Press Limited; First Defendant: Cara Flanagan; Second Defendant: Nelson Thornes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted against the second defendant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Non Compete Clauses, Freedom of Expression, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Contract Law Tort Law Intellectual Property Interim Injunctions Inducement of Breach of Contract Non Compete Clauses Freedom of Expression Adequacy of Damages +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Psychology Press Limited

Claimant

Cara Flanagan

First Defendant

Nelson Thornes Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Interlocutory (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the second defendant from publishing a competing work allegedly in breach of a non-compete clause
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant induced or procured a breach of contract by the first defendant
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

There is a powerfully arguable case that the second defendant was aware of and encouraged a breach of the non-compete clause by the first defendant, the proposed work is likely to compete with the claimant's product, damages would not be an adequate remedy, and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo by granting an interim injunction until trial. Freedom of expression does not outweigh the contractual rights in this context.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted against the second defendant.

Orders

  • Second defendant restrained from printing, editing or publishing the proposed book until trial or further order.
  • Expedited trial to be fixed between 8 July and the end of term.