Marty101
Well-Known Member
Paragraph 92 of the judgment looks pretty clear to me that the £1m cap won’t stand up.
No, it's not saying that.
Para 92 is just considering the need for the injunction SDI are looking for, basically - its all being addressed by the Court under the heading Injunctive relief.
All that paragraph is saying is that SDI's losses will be many millions, but their damages under the contract are capped at £1m. Therefore damages alone as a remedy aren't adequate. Something other than damages (i.e. the injunctive relief - the injunction being sought) is required in addition.
There will be a hearing on damages in the future. It's possible that SDI will try to get round the cap at that hearing, but this judgment doesn't deal with that at all and doesn't set aside the cap.
SDI have used the cap to support the need for the injunction - I think that makes it difficult for them to successfully argue that the cap doesn't apply in the future and the cap will be upheld, but that would remain to be seen.