header-logo header-logo

28 May 2010
Issue: 7419 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Civil procedure

Re Bloomsbury Int Ltd and others v Holyoake and others [2010] EWHC 1150 (Ch), [2010] All ER (D) 207 (May)

While a cross-undertaking would always be included in a coercive or restraining order (other than in cases brought by the Crown to enforce the law or to perform a public duty) there was no rule that an injunction would never be granted or continued if the cross-undertaking was of no real value.

The course to be taken was the course which would involve the least risk of ultimate injustice. In cases where the company had brought the claim, it might and often would be right to require the undertaking to be fortified by some amount, either by a personal undertaking from administrators or from elsewhere. It might be right that the administrators should give some undertaking albeit limited in amount. It was material to make a realistic, intelligent, estimate of the harm which the defendant might suffer; such an assessment should be limited to an enquiry as to whether there was a risk of loss. In the case

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll