The company advertised a product as assisting in permanent weight loss. The Advertising Standards Authority had found the advertisements to be misleading, but the company persisted, and the Authority referred the case to the applicant, who sought an injunction.
Held: The court had jurisdiction to grant the injunction requested. Hoffmann J required no cross-undertaking in damages from the Director. Whatever he might think about the policy, it is well established that ‘the usual practice is that no cross undertaking is required’ when the Crown is seeking an interim injunction to enforce the law.
Judges:
Hoffmann J
Citations:
[1989] 2 All ER 266, [1989] 1 WLR 517
Statutes:
Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (1988 No 915)
Cited by:
Cited – The Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold Plc and Others SC 27-Feb-2013
The FSA sought injunctions to restrain the activities of the first defendants, including asset freezing orders under section 380 of the 2000 Act. The defendant’s bankers objected that they would be prejudiced by the restrictions without the FSA . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Consumer, Litigation Practice
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223972