Ordanduu GmbH & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Phonepayplus Ltd

Ordanduu GmbH & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Phonepayplus Ltd

The Defendant's actions were unlawful because they did not comply with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC; the measures were disproportionate, went beyond the least restrictive means necessary to achieve consumer protection, and the process was unfair as the Claimants were not given notice or opportunity to make representations before suspension and freezing of revenues.

Parties
Claimant: Ordanduu GmbH; Claimant: Optimus Mobile GmbH; Defendant: PhonepayPlus Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; Defendant's actions declared unlawful.
Legal Topics
Proportionality, Fair Process, Freedom to Provide Services, Directive 2000/31/ec, Communications Act 2003, Phonepay Plus Code of Practice, Damages for Breach of EU Law
Administrative Law EU Law Regulatory Law Proportionality Fair Process Freedom to Provide Services Directive 2000/31/ec Communications Act 2003 +2 more

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ordanduu GmbH

Claimant

Optimus Mobile GmbH

Claimant

PhonepayPlus Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's actions complied with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC
  2. 2 Whether the measures taken were proportionate and necessary
  3. 3 Whether the process was fair and provided adequate opportunity for representations

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's actions were unlawful because they did not comply with Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC; the measures were disproportionate, went beyond the least restrictive means necessary to achieve consumer protection, and the process was unfair as the Claimants were not given notice or opportunity to make representations before suspension and freezing of revenues.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Defendant's actions declared unlawful.

Orders

  • Claim transferred to Queen’s Bench Division for determination of causation and quantification of damages.
  • Parties to agree an order; further directions to be given if requested.