Euro Car Parks Limited v Competition & Markets Authority

Euro Car Parks Limited v Competition & Markets Authority

The application fails because the appellant has not provided corroborated evidence of exceptional circumstances or grave harm sufficient to justify restraining publication of the FEN. The public interest in transparency and the respondent’s statutory power to publish outweigh the appellant’s unsubstantiated fears. The threshold under section 12(3) HRA is not met, and the evidence does not demonstrate a real risk of abuse or harm that would justify interim relief.

Parties
Appellant/applicant: Euro Car Parks Limited; Defendant/respondent: Competition & Markets Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2026
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / Application for Urgent Interim Injunction
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Anonymity Orders, Open Justice, Freedom of Expression, Consumer Protection Enforcement
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Anonymity Orders Open Justice Freedom of Expression Consumer Protection Enforcement

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Euro Car Parks Limited

Appellant/applicant

Competition & Markets Authority

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / Application for Urgent Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances justify an interim injunction restraining publication of a Final Enforcement Notice in unredacted form
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed under section 12(3) Human Rights Act 1998
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of harm to the appellant and its directors is sufficient to override the public interest in publication

Ratio Decidendi

The application fails because the appellant has not provided corroborated evidence of exceptional circumstances or grave harm sufficient to justify restraining publication of the FEN. The public interest in transparency and the respondent’s statutory power to publish outweigh the appellant’s unsubstantiated fears. The threshold under section 12(3) HRA is not met, and the evidence does not demonstrate a real risk of abuse or harm that would justify interim relief.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The application for an urgent interim injunction restraining publication of the Final Enforcement Notice in unredacted form is refused.