Francotyp-Postalia Ltd v The Mailing Room Ltd & Ors

Francotyp-Postalia Ltd v The Mailing Room Ltd & Ors

The court held that the defendants' proposed undertakings were sufficient to protect the claimant pending trial and that the claimant was not likely to establish at trial that any wider injunction would be granted. The additional relief sought by the claimant was either not clearly justified, too vague, or not appropriate for interim relief.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Francotyp-Postalia Limited; Defendant/appellant: The Mailing Room Limited (formerly FP Mailing (North West) Limited); Defendant/appellant: George William Bevan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interim Injunction Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Malicious Falsehood, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression
Commercial Law Tort Law Malicious Falsehood Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francotyp-Postalia Limited

Claimant/respondent

The Mailing Room Limited (formerly FP Mailing (North West) Limited)

Defendant/appellant

George William Bevan

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interim Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunction granted was too wide in restraining the defendants' communications with customers
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to additional injunctive relief beyond what the defendants accepted
  3. 3 Whether the court should order further ancillary disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants' proposed undertakings were sufficient to protect the claimant pending trial and that the claimant was not likely to establish at trial that any wider injunction would be granted. The additional relief sought by the claimant was either not clearly justified, too vague, or not appropriate for interim relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Interim injunction narrowed to the terms accepted by the defendants
  • Claimant's request for additional prohibitions rejected