Applying the brakes: interim injunctions in competition law claims
Competition litigation often proves an effective commercial device which can be deployed in timely fashion.
No less so in instances where the very viability of a business appears to be in jeopardy due to the actions of a counterparty. In such cases, interim injunctions often come to the fore. The recent successful application by Eurospares (Continental Parts) Limited (Eurospares) against luxury car giant Porsche illustrates the point.
Eurospares is an independent reseller of genuine, new spare parts for a range of premium sports cars, including Porsche. It was supplied with Porsche parts by one of Porsche's UK authorised dealers for a period of six years, despite not being part of Porsche's selective distribution system. Porsche latterly undertook an internal compliance audit, following which Eurospares was notified in September 2024 that supply would cease – albeit a six-month transitional period was negotiated.
Don't miss a thing, subscribe today!
Stay up to date by subscribing to the latest Public and Regulatory insights from the experts at Fieldfisher.
Subscribe nowEurospares applied for an interim injunction on 25 June 2025, asking the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) to restrain Porsche from ceasing the supply at least until the full trial. The CAT granted that request in a ruling on 28 July 2025.
It is the second time this year that the CAT has awarded this type of interim relief. In May, Perse Technology secured two interim injunctions in its ongoing claim against ElectraLink Limited, requiring ElectraLink to continue supplying it with data on electricity usage.
But such applications are not always successful. In April 2024, the CAT (and, for different reasons, the Court of Appeal) refused Sports Direct's request for interim relief which would have required Newcastle United FC to continue to supply it with replica kit pending trial. In the event, the case ultimately settled ahead of trial.
Careful thought is therefore needed before an applicant goes to the cost of seeking an interim injunction. The following points matter:
1. While the CAT has to take the application at face value, the merits of the overall claim still need to show that there is a serious issue to be tried. They cannot be merely fanciful. Is there a genuine prospect that a permanent injunction will be granted at the trial? If so, securing an interim injunction is more likely.
2. Can the applicant demonstrate that a potential award for damages at trial would not be an adequate remedy? For example, can it show that unless the supply is urgently reinstated, it will suffer harm beyond quantifiable monetary loss, e.g., substantial loss of reputation or irretrievable loss of customers? It is unlikely that an interim injunction will be given if a potential award in damages at trial is deemed adequate.
3. Can the applicant afford to give a cross-undertaking in damages, ensuring that it can make the responding party whole again if it turns out at the trial that the interim injunction was improperly granted? This will normally be required by the CAT as the 'price' for granting the interim injunction.
4. If a sufficient cross-undertaking cannot be given, the CAT has to decide which outcome will be the less of two evils: will it do less harm to grant an injunction which subsequently turns out to be unjustified, or to refuse one if it subsequently turns out that an injunction should have been granted? This 'balance of convenience' often favours an outcome which best preserves the 'status quo' before the alleged wrong was committed. However, the CAT will treat each case on its own merits, with the facts being considered in the round.
We can assist both claimants and defendants in seeking and responding to claims for interim and final injunctions, as well as other remedies. If you would like to discuss any of the issues covered in this blog, please contact the Fieldfisher Competition and Antitrust team.