Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2317 (27th August, 1997)

Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2317 (27th August, 1997)

Zockoll had an arguable case that Mercury's withdrawal of the number could constitute a breach of contract under Section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly if the notice given was not reasonable. However, the circumstances did not justify the grant of a mandatory interlocutory injunction, as the risk of injustice in granting such relief outweighed the risk of refusing it. The proper course was to expedite the substantive trial to resolve the contractual issues.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 2317
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Zockoll Group Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Mercury Communications Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Against Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Mandatory Injunctions, Allocation and Withdrawal of Telephone Numbers, Reasonableness of Contract Terms
Contract Law Telecommunications Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Mandatory Injunctions Allocation and Withdrawal of Telephone Numbers Reasonableness of Contract Terms

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zockoll Group Ltd

Plaintiff/appellant

Mercury Communications Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Against Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mercury's withdrawal of the telephone number from Zockoll constituted a breach of contract under Section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether Zockoll was entitled to a mandatory interlocutory injunction for restoration of the number
  3. 3 Whether the notice period for withdrawal was reasonable under the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Zockoll had an arguable case that Mercury's withdrawal of the number could constitute a breach of contract under Section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly if the notice given was not reasonable. However, the circumstances did not justify the grant of a mandatory interlocutory injunction, as the risk of injustice in granting such relief outweighed the risk of refusing it. The proper course was to expedite the substantive trial to resolve the contractual issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory mandatory injunction refused
  • Order for expedited trial (to be heard within six weeks of new term, time estimate five days)