Jet2.Com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd

When deciding whether to continue an interlocutory injunction, the court must assess the practical consequences of the order rather than rely on a rigid distinction between prohibitory and mandatory relief. A mandatory order may preserve a dynamic status quo where it requires a party to continue a service already being provided. The relevant questions include whether either course causes irremediable prejudice, whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages are adequate and where the balance of convenience lies.

Jet2.com operated scheduled flights from Blackpool Airport under a 2005 Letter Agreement. The agreement required Blackpool Airport Ltd to use best endeavours to promote the airline’s services and all reasonable endeavours to provide a cost base facilitating low-cost pricing. The airport later stated that it would no longer accept flights scheduled outside its promulgated operating hours.

Following the diversion of two flights, Hamblen J granted an interim injunction. Jet2.com applied to continue it until trial. The central issues were whether the agreement arguably required the airport to accommodate out-of-hours flights, whether damages would be adequate, and whether operational and licensing difficulties justified refusing continuation.

1. The injunction was mandatory in practical effect, although drafted in prohibitory terms. The court had to consider the practical consequences of the actual order and the risk of irremediable prejudice. A heightened “high degree of assurance” test was not automatically decisive.
2. The parties’ dealings showed that continuation would preserve a dynamic status quo. The airport’s additional operating costs did not establish irremediable prejudice.
3. The claimant had a strong arguable case that restricting services to 0700–2100 would breach the Letter Agreement. The agreement’s commercial purpose included facilitating low-cost operations, for which early departures and late arrivals were significant. The charging provisions suggested that out-of-hours movements attracted surcharges rather than requiring a special agreement.
4. Damages would not fully protect the claimant because diversions or rescheduling could cause difficult-to-quantify reputational harm and disruption. The balance of convenience favoured continuation.
5. Objections based on licensing obligations, vagueness and supervision could be addressed by suitable drafting. The injunction was continued pending an expedited trial, subject to variation, and the claimant was not to change its current schedules without agreement.

This was an interlocutory application at first instance. Hamblen J had previously granted an injunction on 4 November 2010 under [2010] EWHC 2904 (Comm). The present court continued the injunction pending trial and directed that its terms be varied.