Fashion TV Russia Ltd v F TV Ltd

Pending trial, an injunction may be granted where the claimant shows an arguable contractual breach, damages would not adequately compensate the threatened loss, and the balance of justice favours relief. A defendant’s legitimate complaints about existing contractual breaches do not, without more, justify imposing new working practices with which the claimant cannot practically comply. The court should not extract by undertaking a condition which the defendant has not sought by mandatory injunction, particularly where the request is made late, has not been addressed by evidence, or is uncertain in scope.

Fashion TV Russia Ltd sought continuation of an injunction restraining F.TV Ltd from imposing new working practices as a condition of broadcasting advertising and programmes under a licence agreement. The proposed practices included seven-day advance schedules, detailed sales-order forms and prior accounting approval.

F.TV did not oppose an injunction in principle, but sought an undertaking from Fashion TV Russia to use its best endeavours to provide schedules and video clips within the contractual timescale or four days before broadcast. The central issues were whether the new practices were arguably contrary to the licence agreement, whether damages were adequate, where the balance of justice lay, and whether the injunction should be conditional on the proposed undertaking.

1. Relief granted. The injunction was continued without the condition sought by F.TV.
2. There was an arguable case that the new working practices breached F.TV’s obligations under the licence agreement, including obligations not to derogate from the rights granted to Fashion TV Russia and to co-operate so that those rights could be enjoyed. The practices were materially different from the recent working arrangements, could not practically be complied with in most cases, and F.TV had indicated that failure to comply would prevent scheduling of advertising.
3. Damages were not an adequate remedy. Interruption of advertising for several months threatened serious and potentially irreversible damage to the claimant’s business, reputation and customer relationships. The balance of justice therefore favoured restoring the position before the new workflow was imposed.
4. F.TV’s complaints about late schedules, inaccurate reports and unpaid sums did not justify the new practices. They pre-dated the existing consent order and could be addressed by a claim for damages if loss had resulted.
5. The proposed undertaking was refused. It was inappropriate to extract by undertaking relief which F.TV had not sought by mandatory injunction. The proposal was made late, the claimant had no proper opportunity to adduce evidence on it, there was no material change since the earlier order, the evidence suggested that the claimant was already doing its best to provide schedules four days in advance, and the proposed terms were uncertain and likely to cause practical injustice.

not stated in the judgment.