| Source: | All England Reporter |
| Publisher Citation: | [2011] All ER (D) 113 (Mar) |
| Court: | Chancery Division |
| Judge: | Briggs J (judgment delivered extempore) |
| Representation | Justin Althaus (instructed by Chambers & Co) for the claimant. |
| The defendant appeared in person. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 10 March 2011 |
Catchwords
Injunction - Balance of convenience - Interlocutory injunction - Parties in franchise agreement falling into dispute over effect of restrictive covenant - Claimant seeking interim injunction preventing defendant from operating in breach of restrictive covenant - Whether balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction.
The Case
Injunction Balance of convenience. The Chancery Division found that in the case of a dispute regarding the validity and effect of a restrictive covenant in a franchise agreement, the balance of convenience fell in favour of granting the claimant an interim injunction preventing the defendant from acting in breach of the restrictive covenant.
Practice Areas
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
