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 a good arguable case and not just a serious issue
