KB-2025-003244 - [2025] EWHC 2386 (KB)

Mr Miletic argued that the net effect of the injunctive relief sought would be to prevent the Defendant from working in the boxing industry at all and that his opportunities to work before the expedited trial window would dwindle. In the immediate term, the injunction sought would eliminate his prospects of working with Sky Sports. He has a limited period available to work before retirement: he is 65 years old and given the very intense “24/7” nature of the boxing business, he considers that he has two or three working years left in him, which realistically may be one more project. There would be “a future of real financial struggle” for the Defendant and his family if he cannot find alternative work. He therefore contended that the potential ramifications of this injunction on the Defendant and his family are difficult to quantify, and any damages awarded would likely be inadequate to compensate for this injury.

However, the Claimant has confirmed that it will continue to pay the Defendant’s monthly fee, so he will not be prevented from earning. The Defendant’s statement makes clear that he does not currently have any offer of work from elsewhere, and that although he has had discussions with Sky, they have “made no promises” and he is merely “hopeful that something will come to fruition soon”. At most, the Defendant could be delayed in any efforts to generate business for a proposed new venture. However, as is clear from Le Puy Ltd v Potter & Anor [2015] EWHC 193 (QB) at [58], that is not a good reason to refuse an injunction when set against the risk of harm to the Claimant, an existing business. In my judgment, there was no persuasive evidence, as opposed to assertion, that any losses sustained by the Defendant would not be capable of being remedied by damages, or that any such damages could not be quantified.

Moreover, insofar as the Claimant is required to pay the Defendant damages in the future, Mr Shalom’s evidence as to the company’s finances to which I have already referred makes clear that it is in a position to do so.

For these reasons damages would be an adequate remedy for the Defendant, if the injunction is granted and it later transpires that it should not have been.