- Cited — Alan James Boydell v NZP Limited & Anor 2023-04-04
“…emembered that the statutory test for the grant of an injunction is whether it is just and convenient. Hence the decision of this court in Lansing Linde v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251 that where it will not be possible to hold a trial until the period of the covenant has expired, or substantially expired, it is permissible for the judge to f…”
- Cited — Planon Limited v Gilligan 2022-05-10
“…o which the claimant would be entitled at trial. In such a case, the court may assess the claimant’s likely prospects of success at trial (Lansing Linde v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251 at p 258B-C per Staughton LJ) (paragraph 21).…”
- Considered — Planon Limited v Gilligan 2022-05-10
“… the analysis, when considering the balance of convenience, the Court may, in cases of this type, undertake some assessment of the merits: Lansing Linde v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251 at 258C per Staughton LJ. But I emphasise, as Staughton LJ did, that this is merely “some assessment” or as Bean LJ refers to below, “a preliminary view”. The …”
- Cited — Planon Limited v Gilligan 2022-05-10
“… to form a preliminary view on the merits of the claim. Such has been the approach taken in most cases since the decision of this court in Lansing Linde v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251. This preliminary view is a consideration to be factored into the balance of convenience under the third stage of American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 306.…”
- Cited — Koza Ltd & Anor v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS 2020-07-31
“…cite extensive authority for this well- known practice and the applicable principles: see, for example: NWL Ltd v Woods [1979] 1 WLR 1294; Lansing Linde v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251; and Forse v Secama Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 215. There is still a threshold of a “serious issue to be tried” in the sense of a seriously arguable case that the thr…”
- Applied — Forse & Ors v Secarma Ltd & Ors 2019-03-13
“…That approach was applied by the Court of Appeal in Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251, in which the plaintiff company commenced proceedings against the defendant, a former employee, for breach of a covenant preventing him for a period of 12 mont…”