Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd

Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd

The claimant has a strong arguable case that the defendant's refusal to accommodate flights outside promulgated hours breaches the Letter Agreement, given the contract's focus on facilitating low-cost operations and historical practice. Damages would not be adequate due to reputational harm and operational disruption. The balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction to preserve the dynamic status quo pending trial, with suitable variations to address operational concerns.

Parties
Claimant: Jet2.com Limited; Defendant: Blackpool Airport Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Continuation of Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Injunction continued pending expedited trial; terms to be varied per judgment.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Best Endeavours Clauses, Airport Operations, Estoppel by Convention
Contract Law Commercial Law Interlocutory Injunctions Best Endeavours Clauses Airport Operations Estoppel by Convention

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jet2.com Limited

Claimant

Blackpool Airport Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Ruling on Continuation of Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is contractually obliged to accommodate claimant's flights outside promulgated airport operating hours
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's refusal constitutes a breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether estoppel by convention applies to vary contractual obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has a strong arguable case that the defendant's refusal to accommodate flights outside promulgated hours breaches the Letter Agreement, given the contract's focus on facilitating low-cost operations and historical practice. Damages would not be adequate due to reputational harm and operational disruption. The balance of convenience favours continuing the injunction to preserve the dynamic status quo pending trial, with suitable variations to address operational concerns.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued pending expedited trial; terms to be varied per judgment.

Orders

  • Defendant to continue providing services as per Hamblen J's order, subject to variations to address operational and emergency concerns.
  • Claimant not to change flight schedules without defendant's agreement pending trial.