Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
�Matthew Lavy KC and Daniel Khoo (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, Solicitors) for the Claimant
Matthew Parker KC and Ian McDonald �(instructed by Jones Day, Solicitors) for the Defendant
               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.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.