Flogas v Warrington (t/a Robin Sutton Gases)

Flogas v Warrington (t/a Robin Sutton Gases)

The application for interim mandatory and prohibitory injunctions was refused because the relief sought would require ongoing supervision by the court, which is contrary to established principles. There was no serious question to be tried regarding entitlement to mandatory injunctions or prohibitory injunctions reflecting positive obligations. For the remaining negative covenants, damages would be an adequate remedy, as the only loss identified was financial. The balance of convenience also favoured the respondent, as granting the injunctions would likely render his business unviable.

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
Commercial Contractual Dispute (interim Application) / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunctions
Outcome
Application for interim injunctions dismissed; costs to first defendant on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Prohibitory Injunctions, Specific Performance, Interpretation of Contracts, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Mandatory Injunctions Prohibitory Injunctions Specific Performance Interpretation of Contracts +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
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

Commercial Contractual Dispute (interim Application) / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunctions

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 agreement 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 prohibitory injunctions was refused because the relief sought would require ongoing supervision by the court, which is contrary to established principles. There was no serious question to be tried regarding entitlement to mandatory injunctions or prohibitory injunctions reflecting positive obligations. For the remaining negative covenants, damages would be an adequate remedy, as the only loss identified was financial. The balance of convenience also favoured the respondent, as granting the injunctions would likely render his business unviable.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunctions dismissed; costs to first defendant on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Application for interim mandatory and prohibitory injunctions dismissed.
  • Claimant to pay first defendant's costs on the indemnity basis.