HT-2024-000378 - [2025] EWHC 354 (TCC)

Fecha: 20-Feb-2025

The Legal Framework

13.

When considering whether to lift a suspension, the Court will apply the familiar American Cyanamid test. As summarised by O'Farrell J in Camelot Global Lottery Solutions Limited v Gambling Commission [2022] EWHC 1664 (TCC), at [48]:

(1)

Is there a serious issue to be tried?

(2)

If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the claimant(s) if the suspension were lifted and they succeeded at trial; is it just in all the circumstances that the claimant(s) should be confined to a remedy of damages?

(3)

If not, would damages be an adequate remedy for the defendant if the suspension remained in place and it succeeded at trial?

(4)

Where there is doubt as to the adequacy of damages for either of the parties, which course of action is likely to carry the least risk of injustice if it transpires that it was wrong; that is, where does the balance of convenience lie?

14.

There are numerous, generally first instance, decisions, and each of these turns on their own facts. Each counsel has, entirely fairly, drawn to the attention of the Court certain passages from certain authorities which place particular weight on particular factors. To the extent necessary, I refer to these in the context of the particular stage of the test I am assessing.