Brainbox Digital Ltd v Backboard Media GmbH & Anor [2017] EWHC 2465 (QB) (06 October 2017)

Brainbox Digital Ltd v Backboard Media GmbH & Anor [2017] EWHC 2465 (QB) (06 October 2017)

The defendants did not show a good arguable case that the risk of loss from the injunction exceeded the existing fortification of £125,000; thus, no further fortification or unlimited undertaking was required. The injunction should be varied to permit Backbord to pay its managing director a salary of €10,000 per month. Security for costs in the sum of £125,000 was ordered, to be paid by Brainbox within 14 days.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2465 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Brainbox Digital Limited; Defendant: Backboard Media GmbH; Defendant: Christian Hansen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Continuation/variation of Injunction and Security for Costs
Outcome
Injunction against Mr Hansen discharged; injunction against Backbord continued with variation; no further fortification or unlimited undertaking required; security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Security for Costs, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Security for Costs Cross Undertaking in Damages Interim Relief

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brainbox Digital Limited

Claimant

Backboard Media GmbH

Defendant

Christian Hansen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Continuation/variation of Injunction and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proprietary and freezing injunction against the defendants should be continued and on what terms
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should provide further fortification of its cross-undertaking in damages
  3. 3 Whether the injunction should be conditional on an unlimited undertaking in damages from a third party

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants did not show a good arguable case that the risk of loss from the injunction exceeded the existing fortification of £125,000; thus, no further fortification or unlimited undertaking was required. The injunction should be varied to permit Backbord to pay its managing director a salary of €10,000 per month. Security for costs in the sum of £125,000 was ordered, to be paid by Brainbox within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Injunction against Mr Hansen discharged; injunction against Backbord continued with variation; no further fortification or unlimited undertaking required; security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Injunction against Mr Hansen to cease.
  • Injunction against Backbord to continue, varied to permit agreed adjustment for normal business and payment of €10,000 monthly salary to Mr Borkenhagen.