Competition law

Dominant position - injunctions - on-line information services - evidence of unfair competition

N, which provided business information services over the internet, applied for an order continuing an injunction restraining J from committing alleged abuses of a dominant position within the market for on-line advertising services for IT job vacancies. J applied for the injunction to be discontinued. The original order had been granted on a without notice application and J contended that the order should not have been made since N had made false disclosures concerning J's market share and pricing structure. N submitted that the disclosures were not material.

Held, granting the application to discontinue the injunction but granting the application for a new injunction, that in relation to the without notice application, N had failed in its duty of full, fair and accurate disclosure and such failure had been material, Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. C.Y.L. 137, Dubai Bank Ltd v Galadari (Mareva Injunction) [1990] 1 [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1443, [2000] 3 C.L. 41 considered. N had also failed in its duty to refer the court to relevant authority. Notwithstanding that it was appropriate to discontinue the order, the court had a discretion to order a fresh injunction, Brink's MAT Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1350, [1989] C.L.Y. 3030 applied. The evidence indicated that there was a serious issue to be tried as to J's alleged dominance of the relevant market and as to the alleged abuse of that position. As damages would not be an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience favoured N, it was appropriate to order a new injunction.

"Current Law" November 2001