Unique Pub Properties Ltd v Roddy & Ors

For an interim mandatory injunction, the court applies the American Cyanamid principles and may also require a high degree of assurance that the claimant will establish its right at trial. Even without that assurance, relief may be granted where the risk of injustice from refusal substantially outweighs the risk from granting it.

In a competition-law challenge to an exclusive purchasing obligation, the court must consider the relevant economic and legal context. A comparison between two businesses, or between prices alone, will rarely establish an infringement. The analysis may require consideration of market access, cumulative foreclosure, the parties’ market positions, duration, and whether the transactions are genuinely equivalent.

The claimant sought an interim injunction requiring the defendants, tenants of a public house, to comply with exclusive purchasing obligations in a 2014 retail partnership lease. The defendants admitted buying tied drinks from alternative suppliers but contended that the purchasing obligation was void under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998.

The alleged competitive disadvantage arose from favourable supply terms given to a nearby public house owned by the claimant’s parent company. The court considered whether the claimant had a sufficiently strong case for a mandatory injunction, whether damages were adequate, and where the balance of injustice lay.

1. Interim injunction principles. The court applied the American Cyanamid test: whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party, and where the balance of convenience or injustice lay. Because the order was mandatory, the court also considered whether it had a high degree of assurance that the claimant would succeed at trial. Even without such assurance, a mandatory injunction could be granted where the risk of injustice from refusal sufficiently outweighed the risk from granting it.
2. Competition defence. The defendants’ section 2 defence raised a serious issue, but the court had a high degree of assurance that the claimant would ultimately succeed. Issues requiring trial included whether the claimant and its parent were a single undertaking, whether the transactions were equivalent, and whether the alleged pricing difference placed the defendants at a competitive disadvantage.
3. The relevant assessment was not confined to the prices charged by two nearby public houses. The court had to consider the wider economic and legal context, including the condition and location of the businesses, the support provided to a failing public house, the rental arrangements, the relevant market, and the effect of the purchasing tie on competition. Case C-234/89 Delimitis v Henninger Brau AG [1991] ECR I 935 illustrated the need to consider market access and the cumulative effect of similar agreements.
4. Remedies and balance of injustice. The defendants’ means and existing liabilities created a substantial risk that damages could not be recovered if the injunction were refused. The claimant, a substantial pub-owning group, could compensate the defendants under its cross-undertaking if the injunction later proved unjustified. The nearby competing pub had also ceased trading, so the alleged source of disadvantage had disappeared while the defendants continued to trade as if they operated a free house.
5. The injunction was therefore just and convenient and was granted in the terms sought.