Holmes -v- Lingard HJL Holdings Ltd and Angel Fish Ltd [2015] JRC 141 (29 June 2015)

Holmes -v- Lingard HJL Holdings Ltd and Angel Fish Ltd [2015] JRC 141 (29 June 2015)

The interim injunctions were lifted because Mr Holmes failed to give notice to the defendants and failed to make full and frank disclosure, particularly regarding the existence of any binding agreement. There was no serious issue to be tried as to the existence of the alleged agreement, and damages would be an adequate remedy for Mr Holmes. The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Citation
[2015] JRC 141
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Holmes; First Defendant: Mr Lingard; Second Defendant: HJL Holdings Limited; Third Defendant: Angel Fish Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Lift Interim Injunction
Outcome
interim injunctions lifted; application to re-impose refused
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Injunctions, Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure, Balance of Convenience, Adequacy of Damages
Civil Procedure Contract Law Injunctive Relief Ex Parte Injunctions Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure Balance of Convenience Adequacy of Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Holmes

Plaintiff

Mr Lingard

First Defendant

HJL Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Angel Fish Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Lift Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim injunctions should be lifted due to failure to give notice and material non-disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the injunctions should be re-imposed based on the American Cyanamid test

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunctions were lifted because Mr Holmes failed to give notice to the defendants and failed to make full and frank disclosure, particularly regarding the existence of any binding agreement. There was no serious issue to be tried as to the existence of the alleged agreement, and damages would be an adequate remedy for Mr Holmes. The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

Court Disposition

interim injunctions lifted; application to re-impose refused

Orders

  • Interim injunctions previously granted ex parte are discharged.
  • Application to re-impose interim injunctions is refused.