Business Environment Group Ltd. v Wendy Fair (Wembley) Group Ltd & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1230 (08 August 2005)

Business Environment Group Ltd. v Wendy Fair (Wembley) Group Ltd & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 1230 (08 August 2005)

The judge was entitled to grant the interlocutory injunction because the claimant had a well arguable case of public nuisance, the risk of unquantifiable damage to the claimant was real and substantial, and the risk of damage to the defendants was relatively small and easily quantifiable. The balancing exercise justified the injunction, even though it was likely to be determinative before trial.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1230
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Business Environment Group Limited; Defendant/appellant: Wendy Fair (Wembley) Group Limited; Defendant/appellant: Wembley (London) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Order of High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, Damages, Highway Law
Civil Procedure Tort Law Interlocutory Injunctions Public Nuisance Private Nuisance Damages Highway Law

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Business Environment Group Limited

Claimant/respondent

Wendy Fair (Wembley) Group Limited

Defendant/appellant

Wembley (London) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Order of High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the operation of a market on Olympic Way was appropriate given the likelihood that the injunction would be determinative of the parties' rights before trial.
  2. 2 Whether the market's use of Olympic Way constituted an unreasonable interference amounting to public nuisance.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to grant the interlocutory injunction because the claimant had a well arguable case of public nuisance, the risk of unquantifiable damage to the claimant was real and substantial, and the risk of damage to the defendants was relatively small and easily quantifiable. The balancing exercise justified the injunction, even though it was likely to be determinative before trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction maintained restraining the defendants from obstructing Olympic Way as specified in the High Court order.
  • Appellants to pay respondent's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.