AirX Jet Support Limited & Anor v London Jet Centre (Stanstead) Limited & Anor

On an application for an interim mandatory injunction, the court applies the American Cyanamid framework: serious issue to be tried, adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. A high degree of assurance as to the applicant’s ultimate right is not an inflexible precondition, but is ordinarily relevant to the balance of convenience. The court should select the course carrying the lower risk of injustice if the trial conclusion proves different. Mandatory relief may be framed by requiring best endeavours where performance depends on a third party. Relief should be sufficiently precise to enforce, but the court should avoid prescribing a result unsupported by the evidence.

The claimants, companies operating a private jet business from an aircraft hangar, sought interim mandatory orders requiring the defendants to repair the hangar roof and restore adequate heating. The parties disputed the legal basis on which the claimants occupied the hangar and the existence and scope of any repairing and heating obligations.

The roof evidence remained materially disputed and had developed through successive repairs and inspections. The heating evidence supported a serious issue concerning the adequacy of substitute heating. The central questions were whether the claimants satisfied the interim injunction test and, if so, what form of order was appropriate.

1. Roof. There was a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendants owed a repairing obligation. Damages would not necessarily be adequate because continuing leaks could cause safety, productivity and accreditation risks that were difficult to quantify. Nevertheless, the court refused the mandatory roof-repair order. The evidence did not provide a sufficiently clear and current understanding of the roof’s condition, the work required, its cost, duration or likely effectiveness. The proposed order was also highly specific and exposed the defendants to contempt consequences. The expert evidence relied on by the claimants was admitted, but given little weight because of the expert’s connections, conduct and the age and limited basis of his proposals.
2. The appropriate interim step was a joint inspection by an independent expert or experts, preferably a single expert detached from both parties. The court would reconsider mandatory relief if the parties could not agree a way forward after the report.
3. Heating. There was a serious issue to be tried and damages were inadequate. The balance of convenience firmly favoured relief, and the court had a high degree of assurance that an obligation to provide heating existed and had been breached. The order would not require a fixed temperature of 16°C because the evidence did not establish that this was consistently achieved and the building’s use made temperature fluctuate.
4. The defendants were ordered to use their best endeavours to restore the gas-powered heating. That qualification was necessary because restoration depended partly on the gas supplier. The form of the order reflected the approach approved in Peninsular Maritime Ltd v Padseal Ltd [1981] 2 EGLR 43. The parties were directed to agree the order.