Competition Authority v. Avonmore Waterford Group plc [1998] IEHC 164 (17th November, 1998)

The balance of justice does not favour granting the interlocutory injunction because the Defendants' loss would not be adequately compensated by damages, the subject matter is fragile and transient, and the potential market impact pending trial does not justify the order, even though the application is brought by a State Authority implementing statutory policy.

Citation: [1998] IEHC 164
Parties: Applicant: Competition Authority; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Procedural Posture: Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interim Application Prior to Trial
Outcome: Application for interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics: Interlocutory Injunctions, Balance of Convenience, Adequacy of Damages, Statutory Policy Implementation

Competition Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Balance of Convenience Adequacy of Damages Statutory Policy Implementation

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Competition Authority

Applicant

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interim Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from proceeding with a proposed agreement alleged to breach the Competition Act
2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the Defendants if the injunction is wrongly granted
3 Whether the public interest in statutory policy implementation outweighs the Defendants' loss

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

Refusal to grant the interlocutory injunction sought by the Competition Authority