AB v CD

AB v CD

An exclusion or limitation clause restricting recoverable damages does not render damages an adequate remedy for breach of contract and does not preclude the grant of an interim injunction. The primary obligation is performance, and the court's discretion to grant injunctive relief is not fettered by such clauses. Bath v Mowlem is binding authority that the adequacy of damages must be assessed in light of the actual loss, not merely the contractually recoverable amount.

Parties
Appellant: AB; Respondent: CD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Exclusion and Limitation Clauses, Arbitration Support

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

CD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Interim Injunction

  1. 1 Whether an exclusion or limitation clause in a contract affects the adequacy of damages as a remedy for breach and the grant of interim injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

An exclusion or limitation clause restricting recoverable damages does not render damages an adequate remedy for breach of contract and does not preclude the grant of an interim injunction. The primary obligation is performance, and the court's discretion to grant injunctive relief is not fettered by such clauses. Bath v Mowlem is binding authority that the adequacy of damages must be assessed in light of the actual loss, not merely the contractually recoverable amount.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interim injunction to be granted; parties to agree terms or submit written submissions if necessary