Brainbox Digital Ltd v Backboard Media GmbH & Anor

Brainbox Digital Ltd v Backboard Media GmbH & Anor

The Defendants failed to show a good arguable case that the loss suffered or likely to be suffered as a result of the injunction would exceed the existing fortification of £125,000. Therefore, no further or unlimited undertaking in damages was required. The injunction should continue against Backbord with agreed variations for normal business, including payment of a reasonable salary to its Managing Director. Security for costs was justified in the sum of £125,000, to be paid by Brainbox into court within 14 days.

Parties
Claimant: Brainbox Digital Limited; Defendant: Backboard Media GMBH; Defendant: Christian Hansen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Continuation/variation of Injunction and Security for Costs
Outcome
Injunction against Mr Hansen discharged; injunction against Backbord continued with variations; no further unlimited undertaking in damages required; security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Proprietary Injunctions, Security for Costs, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Proprietary Injunctions Security for Costs Cross Undertaking in Damages Interlocutory 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

Civil / Interlocutory Application for 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 Defendants are entitled to security for costs and in what amount

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to show a good arguable case that the loss suffered or likely to be suffered as a result of the injunction would exceed the existing fortification of £125,000. Therefore, no further or unlimited undertaking in damages was required. The injunction should continue against Backbord with agreed variations for normal business, including payment of a reasonable salary to its Managing Director. Security for costs was justified in the sum of £125,000, to be paid by Brainbox into court within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Injunction against Mr Hansen discharged; injunction against Backbord continued with variations; no further unlimited undertaking in damages required; security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Injunction ceases to apply to Mr Hansen.
  • Injunction against Backbord continues subject to agreed adjustment for normal business, including payment of €10,000 monthly salary to Mr Borkenhagen.