Calor Gas Ltd v Stanford: ChD 13 Nov 2009

Judgment on the return date following a search order which had been successfully obtained without notice from Wyn Williams J. The claimant said that the defendant had been refilling the claimant’s Liquid Petroleum Gas cylinders with gas from other suppliers, and that this put the public at risk. Holroyd J quoted Wyn Williams J as saying: ‘Not without some hesitation, as has been obvious by virtue of the interchange between leading counsel and myself, I propose to make a suitable Search and Seizure Order in a moment. The principal reasons which have led me to that course are threefold. First of all, the cause of action appears unassailable, certainly on the information placed before me, but in all probability, the cause of action is unassailable. Secondly, the Respondent has previously given an undertaking to the court, admittedly 12 years ago, but the evidence put before me suggests that the Defendant is continuing a course of conduct which is in breach of that undertaking . . Thirdly, there is a public interest in the granting of this injunction since there is a risk that the misuse of the Claimant’s cylinders in the way described in the evidence could lead to real public safety concerns. On those grounds this draconian Order is justified.’

Holroyd J
Unreported, 13 November 2009
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCalor Gas Ltd v Chorley Bottle Gas Ltd and Another QBD 22-Jul-2020
Search and Seizure – Concerns for Public Safety
The claimant supplied branded liquid gas containers and the gas, on condition that only its liquid gas would be used within the containers. The sought a search and seizure order against the defendants, saying that the public health and safety risks . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.654039