Yodel Delivery Network Limited v Jacob Corlett & Ors

Yodel Delivery Network Limited v Jacob Corlett & Ors

Damages were an adequate remedy for applicants due to the guarantee from InPost SA, and applicants' cross-undertaking in damages was inadequate. The balance of convenience favoured Yodel, as an injunction would cause uncompensatable loss and disrupt an ongoing transformation plan. The judge's refusal to grant an injunction was correct and within discretion.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Yodel Delivery Network Limited; Defendant: Jacob Corlett; Defendant: YDLGP Limited; Defendant/appellant: Shift Global Holdings Limited; Defendant: Gregory Crane Limited; Third Party: Michael John Hancox; Fourth Party/appellant: Corja Holdings Limited; Fifth Party: Judge Logistics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Shareholder Disputes, Specific Performance, Corporate Reorganisation
Company Law Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Shareholder Disputes Specific Performance Corporate Reorganisation

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 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yodel Delivery Network Limited

Claimant/respondent

Jacob Corlett

Defendant

YDLGP Limited

Defendant

Shift Global Holdings Limited

Defendant/appellant

Gregory Crane Limited

Defendant

Michael John Hancox

Third Party

Corja Holdings Limited

Fourth Party/appellant

Judge Logistics Limited

Fifth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for applicants seeking shares via warrant instrument
  2. 2 Whether applicants' cross-undertaking in damages is sufficient
  3. 3 Where the balance of convenience lies in granting or refusing interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Damages were an adequate remedy for applicants due to the guarantee from InPost SA, and applicants' cross-undertaking in damages was inadequate. The balance of convenience favoured Yodel, as an injunction would cause uncompensatable loss and disrupt an ongoing transformation plan. The judge's refusal to grant an injunction was correct and within discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; injunction refused.

Orders

  • No interim injunction granted.
  • Expedited trial of preliminary issue directed.