Flogas v Warrington (t/a Robin Sutton Gases) [2007] EWHC 1303 (QB) (18 May 2007)

Flogas v Warrington (t/a Robin Sutton Gases) [2007] EWHC 1303 (QB) (18 May 2007)

The application for interim mandatory and certain prohibitory injunctions was refused because such orders would require ongoing court supervision, are not appropriate to enforce positive contractual obligations, and there was no serious question to be tried on those claims. For the remaining prohibitory injunctions, damages would be an adequate remedy for Flogas, as the loss was purely financial and quantifiable. The balance of convenience also favoured the defendant, whose business viability would be threatened by the orders sought.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1303
Parties
Claimant: Flogas UK Ltd; First Defendant: Vincent Warrington t/a Robin Sutton Gases; Second Defendant: Calor Gas Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Prohibitory Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Specific Performance, Negative Covenants, Interpretation of Contracts, Repudiation, Misrepresentation, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Mandatory Injunctions Prohibitory Injunctions Adequacy of Damages Specific Performance +5 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flogas UK Ltd

Claimant

Vincent Warrington t/a Robin Sutton Gases

First Defendant

Calor Gas Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim mandatory and prohibitory injunctions should be granted to enforce positive and negative covenants in a dealer agreement
  2. 2 Whether the contract between Flogas and Mr Warrington was still in force
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for Flogas

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim mandatory and certain prohibitory injunctions was refused because such orders would require ongoing court supervision, are not appropriate to enforce positive contractual obligations, and there was no serious question to be tried on those claims. For the remaining prohibitory injunctions, damages would be an adequate remedy for Flogas, as the loss was purely financial and quantifiable. The balance of convenience also favoured the defendant, whose business viability would be threatened by the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application for interim injunctions refused
  • Claimant to pay first defendant's costs on the indemnity basis