Arqiva Ltd & Ors v Everything Everywhere Ltd & Ors

Arqiva Ltd & Ors v Everything Everywhere Ltd & Ors

The application for an interim injunction is dismissed because there is no sufficiently serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged breaches, damages would be an adequate remedy for any loss suffered, and the balance of convenience does not favour granting the injunction.

Parties
Claimant: Arqiva Limited; Claimant: Arqiva Services Limited; Claimant: Arqiva No 2 Limited; Claimant: Arqiva No 3 Limited; Claimant: Arqiva Aerial Sites Plc; Respondent: Everything Everywhere Limited; Respondent: Orange Personal Communications Services Limited; Respondent: Orange Holdings (UK) Limited; Respondent: Mobile Broadband Network Limited; Respondent: Hutchison 3G (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Site Sharing Agreements, Licence Transfer, Balance of Convenience
Contract Law Telecommunications Law Interim Injunctions Adequacy of Damages Site Sharing Agreements Licence Transfer Balance of Convenience

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arqiva Limited

Claimant

Arqiva Services Limited

Claimant

Arqiva No 2 Limited

Claimant

Arqiva No 3 Limited

Claimant

Arqiva Aerial Sites Plc

Claimant

Everything Everywhere Limited

Respondent

Orange Personal Communications Services Limited

Respondent

Orange Holdings (UK) Limited

Respondent

Mobile Broadband Network Limited

Respondent

Hutchison 3G (UK) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction / Ruling on Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of Clause 9.3 and Clause 28 of the MSSA
  2. 2 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for the Claimants
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interim injunction is dismissed because there is no sufficiently serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged breaches, damages would be an adequate remedy for any loss suffered, and the balance of convenience does not favour granting the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • Claimants given permission to re-apply if circumstances change