[2025] EWHC 1160 (TCC)

This is an application made by the Claimant, EE Ltd (“EE”), for interim injunctive relief against the Defendant, Avanti Broadband Ltd (“Avanti”). The essence of the relief sought is that Avanti must not suspend or otherwise withdraw or materially change the satellite mobile backhaul services that it is providing to EE, until trial or further order.

Paragraph 2 of the draft order then provides for payment to Avanti for the continued provision of such services at a pro-tem price to be determined by the Court, which would be subject to final resolution at a later stage.

EE’s underlying case is that there remains on foot as between it and Avanti, an underlying contract pursuant to which Avanti has been providing the relevant services since July 2016. It therefore follows that there is an extant contractual obligation upon Avanti, going forwards, to continue to provide them on the basis that the relevant contract has not thus far been terminated.

The reason for EE seeking the injunction is that since early this year, Avanti has threatened to withdraw its services on a phased basis unless EE agrees to pay for those services at a substantially increased rate which EE contends is exorbitant and unreasonable and which it is not bound to pay. It is common ground that Avanti has indeed intimated that it will start to withdraw it services unless agreement on price can be reached.

The present position is that Avanti has been prepared to continue to provide its services pending the making and outcome of this application. Further, it has made an open offer to EE to continue providing them for a further 3 months but no longer and at the higher rate which it seeks. It contends that it could in any event not supply the services beyond 3 months because this would risk it losing a very lucrative contract for the supply of satellite services to a new customer.

For its part, EE would be prepared to pay Avanti a pro tem fee of £300,000 per month but it would need Avanti to maintain the services for longer than 3 months and ideally for 6-9 months. This is because while EE recognises that it cannot continue to take services from Avanti on a long-term basis at the rate required by Avanti and has indeed started to engage with a different satellite supplier to take over from Avanti, this process of “migration” is a protracted one if it is to be done properly.

Since the parties have been unable to agree a way forward after which they would effectively part company, EE has brought this application for an injunction, effectively to maintain Avanti services until the migration is complete or trial, whichever comes first.

As to the underlying merits of EE’s claim, Avanti disputes that it is presently under any continuing contractual obligation to supply the services. Strictly speaking, it says, it would be entitled to walk away now. In fact, and as noted above, it has never suggested that but instead and in order to facilitate an orderly migration, has intimated that the withdrawal of services would be on a phased basis. Avanti says that EE’s claim to be entitled to Avanti services for an effectively indefinite period is hopeless so that for present purposes, EE is unable to show that there is a serious issue to be tried. Of course, if that is right, the application for an injunction fails at the first hurdle.

If I were to find that there was a serious issue to be tried, EE then says that the balance of convenience, or as it is sometimes now put, the balance of least irremediable justice, lies in its favour. Avanti contends the opposite.

For the purpose of this application, I have two witness statements (“WSs”) from EE’s solicitor, Luke Pardey dated 24 March and 28 April 2025 (“LP1” and “LP2” respectively) and one WS from Avanti’s solicitor, Rhys Thomas, dated 17 April 2025 (“RT1”).