Business Environment Group Ltd. v Wendy Fair (Wembley) Group Ltd & Anor

Business Environment Group Ltd. v Wendy Fair (Wembley) Group Ltd & Anor

The judge was entitled to grant the interlocutory injunction because the claimant had a well arguable case with a real prospect of success, the risk of unquantifiable damage to the claimant was substantial, the risk to the defendants was quantifiable and relatively small, and the claimant was good for any damages on its cross-undertaking. The balancing exercise justified the injunction, even though it would likely be determinative before trial.

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 in High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, Trespass, Negligence, Costs
Civil Procedure Tort Law Interlocutory Injunctions Public Nuisance Private Nuisance Trespass Negligence Costs

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 4
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 in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the operation of a market on Olympic Way was justified
  2. 2 Whether the claimant had a real prospect of success at trial for public nuisance
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendants if the injunction was wrongly granted

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to grant the interlocutory injunction because the claimant had a well arguable case with a real prospect of success, the risk of unquantifiable damage to the claimant was substantial, the risk to the defendants was quantifiable and relatively small, and the claimant was good for any damages on its cross-undertaking. The balancing exercise justified the injunction, even though it would likely be determinative before trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction granted by the High Court to remain in force
  • Appellants to pay respondent's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed