The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants, ‘Mercury’ from withdrawing from Zockoll the use of a particular telephone number, 0500 354448. Immediately upon that Order being made, Mercury withdrew that number from Zockoll and assigned it to another of their customers. Z now invited the Court to grant a mandatory injunction to withdraw that number and re-assign it to the Plaintiffs.
Simon Brown, Philips LJJ
[1998] 1 FSR 354, [1997] EWCA Civ 2317
Bailii
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 3, Telecommunications Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Zockoll Group Limited v Mercury Communications Limited CA 8-Jul-1997
. .
Approved – Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
Cited – Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham ChD 1970
In the context of an interlocutory application for an enforcing a mandatory injunction, Megarry J said: ‘on motion, as contrasted with the trial, the court is far more reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction than it would be to grant a comparable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.142715
