header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 October 2013
Issue: 7579 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Procedure—Injunction pending appeal

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Peel Land and Property (Ports No.3) Ltd v TS Sheerness Steel Ltd [2013] EWHC 2689 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 15 (Oct)

The legal principles to be applied to an injunction pending appeal were the same as those which applied when a court was asked to grant an interim injunction at an early stage in the proceedings pending the trial of those proceedings. The judgment in Novartis AG v Hospira UK Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 297 (May) did not lay down a more onerous test for an injunction pending appeal as compared to an injunction pending trial. On the authorities, where there was no arguable defence to the application for interim relief, the applicant did not need to show that the breach of contract was causing uncompensatable damage. For the purposes of interim relief, it would normally not be enough to justify intervention from the court that the claimant had a right to have nominal damages for an interference with the rights of his claiming. A claimant for a freezing injunction would have to show

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll