Arla Foods Ltd v Persons Unknown, 2024 WL 03597159 (2024)
131. In my judgment it is. There are a number of routes specified in the alternative service provisions of the orders granted to date by Bacon J and Fancourt J, which in my view remain appropriate, including notices at the premises and e-mail.
Have the Claimants provided a generous liberty to apply clause? 132. In my judgment, they have, because the order sought provides for the ability to apply to vary or discharge the Order on 48 hours' notice.
Should a cross-undertaking be required? 133. Given that the order only prohibits acts that are in any event unlawful or highly likely to be unlawful, in my judgment as in Jockey Club it is not necessary for the Claimants to provide a cross-undertaking in respect of the injunction against newcomers.
Conclusion 134. I therefore grant the orders sought.
Crown copyright
208
© 2025 Thomson Reuters.
24
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator