Interim injunctions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal - recent developments

A perennial complaint about competition law is that it takes too long. Investigations and litigation can often run for many years before a final resolution. 

But interim relief is available, both in the CMA, where the potential availability of interim measures has been boosted by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (see here) and by claims for interim injunctions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the Competition Act 1998. 

Two such claims have been made before the Tribunal in Q2 of 2025, with interim injunctions granted in one case so far. 

In Perse Technology v ElectraLink, the CAT has granted not one, but two, interim injunctions requiring the defendant to continue supplying data on electricity usage previously supplied under a framework agreement. 

A claim for an interim injunction to mandate continued supply has also been made in the newly filed case Eurospares v Porsche, relating to spare parts. 

Of course, such applications do not always succeed, as we saw in last year's judgments in Sports Direct v Newcastle United (again, a claim seeking to mandate supply, in this case of replica kit). While the claim in this case was unsuccessful, the Court of Appeal judgment in that case is a useful corrective to the first instance judgment, emphasising that the claimant's pleaded case must be accepted at face value unless it is obviously ‘fanciful’.

Despite the refusal of interim relief in that case, an application for an interim injunction under competition law is a tool worthy of consideration in appropriate cases. The recent grant of mandatory relief in Perse should give the parties an opportunity to seek to negotiate a commercial resolution with the potential to avoid incurring the cost or delay of a full trial. 

A few things to think about for parties considering such a route:

• How clear is the obligation to supply and the failure to continue to do so? A claim for interim relief only requires that the pleaded case is not ‘fanciful’ but it is important that there alleged breach of competition law uses well-trodden paths and is well-grounded in the pleaded facts. Pleading a weak case will also affect the balance of convenience, as the Court of Appeal found in Sports Direct.
• What is the available evidence that the non-supply will cause more than pecuniary harm? Consider the evidence that may be required about relationships with your own customers and the nature of the product. 
• Consider your own position - have you breached the agreement in any material way? If alleging that you are operating under an agreement which itself breaches competition law, there will be additional potential risks at play.
• How quickly have you acted? The balance of convenience will shift if there is a material delay. 
• Will the cross-undertaking in damages be affordable? Beneficiaries of an interim injunction are likely to need to ensure that they can make the defendant whole again if the injunction is overturned after a hearing on the merits. 
• Have you retained all relevant documents? Last year's Up & Running v Deckers case involved a party being criticised for failing to do so (see here). 

Bristows is experienced at assisting both claimants and defendants with claims for interim and final injunctions as well as exploring potential interim measures before the CMA. Please contact partners Sophie Lawrance, Stephen Smith or Robert Vidal, or your usual contact in Bristows competition team.