Yodel Delivery Network Ltd v Corlett & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1108 (15 August 2025)

Yodel Delivery Network Ltd v Corlett & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1108 (15 August 2025)

The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy for Shift and Corja, supported by a guarantee from InPost SA. The cross-undertaking in damages offered by Shift and Corja was inadequate due to lack of assets. The balance of convenience favoured Yodel, as injunctive relief would risk irreparable harm, prevent implementation of the transformation plan, and could not be justified given the applicants' inability to compensate Yodel for losses. The Judge's exercise of discretion was correct and not open to appellate interference.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1108
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Yodel Delivery Network Limited; First Defendant: Jacob Corlett; Second Defendant: YDLGP Limited; Third Defendant/appellant: Shift Global Holdings Limited; Fourth Defendant: Gregory Crane Limited; Third Party: Michael John Hancox; Fourth Party/appellant: Corja Holdings Limited; Fifth Party: Judge Logistics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Shareholder Disputes, Specific Performance, Balance of Convenience, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Shareholder Disputes Specific Performance Balance of Convenience Cross Undertaking in Damages

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yodel Delivery Network Limited

Claimant/respondent

Jacob Corlett

First Defendant

YDLGP Limited

Second Defendant

Shift Global Holdings Limited

Third Defendant/appellant

Gregory Crane Limited

Fourth Defendant

Michael John Hancox

Third Party

Corja Holdings Limited

Fourth Party/appellant

Judge Logistics Limited

Fifth Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain Yodel from implementing its transformation plan pending trial of the preliminary issue on share allotment
  2. 2 Adequacy of damages as remedy for applicants
  3. 3 Adequacy of cross-undertaking in damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy for Shift and Corja, supported by a guarantee from InPost SA. The cross-undertaking in damages offered by Shift and Corja was inadequate due to lack of assets. The balance of convenience favoured Yodel, as injunctive relief would risk irreparable harm, prevent implementation of the transformation plan, and could not be justified given the applicants' inability to compensate Yodel for losses. The Judge's exercise of discretion was correct and not open to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interim injunction granted
  • Expedited trial of preliminary issue on share allotment ordered