Aston Martin Lagonda Limited v IMR-Industrialesud SpA

Where an urgent application for interim injunctive relief must be decided on limited evidence, the court may form provisional views where the consequences of inaction require immediate intervention and doing so is not unfair. The central consideration is which course carries the greater risk of injustice if the court’s provisional assessment later proves wrong. Relief may be granted to preserve the position pending a fuller hearing, while expressly leaving the merits open. A targeted order requiring performance of apparently due contractual obligations may be appropriate as the condition for adjourning the application, particularly where the threatened commercial harm is substantially disproportionate to the value of the immediate performance in dispute.

Aston Martin sought urgent interim injunctive relief requiring IMR, its supplier of automotive parts, to resume approximately seven scheduled deliveries. IMR had refused delivery while asserting claims of approximately €9 million arising from alleged shortfalls between forecast and actual parts volumes, and had not commenced proceedings to establish those claims.

The refusal had caused Aston Martin’s production to stop or materially slow, with substantial consequences for its workforce and operations. IMR sought an adjournment because of the limited time available to prepare. The issue was whether the hearing should be adjourned on terms requiring the missing deliveries to be made pending a fuller hearing.

1. Provisional assessment. The court may judge an urgent interlocutory matter provisionally on limited material where the gravity of the consequences requires immediate action, provided that doing so is not unfair and the limited nature of the decision is recognised.
2. Balance of injustice. The relevant comparison was the greater injustice likely to result from requiring the deliveries and later finding that IMR was entitled to refuse them, against the injustice of withholding relief and later finding that Aston Martin had been entitled to it. On the material available, the balance decisively favoured Aston Martin.
3. Interim contractual relief. The evidence indicated that Aston Martin had, prima facie, a contractual entitlement to the missing deliveries. Requiring those particular deliveries would enable production to resume and would limit serious and rapidly escalating commercial harm. It would also permit IMR to receive payment for deliveries which Aston Martin accepted would be payable if made.
4. Scope and procedural safeguards. The order was confined to clearly identifiable scheduled deliveries already missed. The matter was adjourned to 4 July 2025 for a de novo reconsideration on fuller evidence. The judge’s provisional views were not to affect the judge hearing the later application, including on the merits, jurisdiction or service.

not stated in the judgment.