For claimants in competition cases, timing can be everything. Access to a key supplier, data feed, or distribution channel can make or break a business—especially for smaller players going up against incumbents. In the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), two mechanisms are particularly relevant when urgent intervention is needed: interim injunctions and the Fast-Track Procedure (FTP).
Both are designed to provide swifter resolution, albeit in different ways. Interim injunctions aim to preserve the status quo while a dispute is ongoing, preventing irreversible damage before the case is fully heard. The FTP, meanwhile, offers a route for simpler cases to move more quickly through the system, typically with capped legal costs and tighter timelines.
Neither tool is deployed lightly. On interim injunctions, recent cases show that the CAT is willing to grant urgent relief where the facts justify it—particularly in claims involving access, exclusion, or urgent market disruption. On the FTP, the CAT has been more circumspect, assigning only a handful of cases to date and favouring those that are relatively self-contained and procedurally simple. That said, the FTP is not the only route to swift and proportionate case management. Recent decisions highlight the CAT’s growing use of its wider case management powers to expedite proceedings and manage costs, even in cases outside the fast track. Taken together, these tools offer powerful levers for claimants seeking urgent intervention, whether their claims are straightforward or complex.
So, what does it take to secure an interim injunction in the CAT? When is the FTP available—and how far is the CAT prepared to go in moving quickly, with or without it?
What is an interim injunction and when will the CAT grant one?
An interim injunction is a temporary court order that either prevents or compels a party from doing something until a final decision is made at trial. Like other courts, the CAT follows well-worn legal principles when it comes to interim injunctions. These rules go back to the landmark American Cyanamid case and have been reaffirmed in competition cases, including Sports Direct v Newcastle United.
To obtain an interim injunction, the applicant must clear a three-part test:
- Serious issue to be tried: first, the CAT needs to be satisfied that there is a real issue at stake—not just a weak or speculative claim. The bar isn’t especially high at this stage, and the CAT will not assess merits in depth, but the applicant must show that the case has a real prospect of success.
- Adequacy of damages: next, the CAT considers whether the harm could be fully compensated in damages. The applicant needs to show that damages could not address the harm they would suffer without an injunction, such as because the damage is irreversible or unquantifiable.
- Balance of convenience: finally, the CAT weighs the relative harm to each party. Who stands to lose more if the interim injunction is granted or refused? The goal is to avoid causing unnecessary harm. If the potential damage to the applicant outweighs the burden on the respondent, the CAT is more likely to grant the application.
An applicant for interim relief will be expected to give a cross-undertaking in damages, which is a promise to compensate the respondent for its losses if it later turns out the injunction was not justified. Essentially, it’s a form of insurance, designed to protect the respondent from financial loss while the case plays out. The CAT has a discretion to waive or cap the undertaking in damages where the FTP applies (discussed further below).
How has the CAT approached interim injunctions in recent cases?
Recent cases suggest a growing readiness by the CAT to grant urgent interim relief expeditiously, although every case turns on its own facts.
For example, in Perse Technology v ElectraLink, Perse, a company that provides data services in the energy sector, argued that ElectraLink, its supplier of electricity consumption data, had refused to offer fair prices and trading terms, in breach of the Chapter II Prohibition in the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”). The CAT granted an interim injunction requiring ElectraLink to continue supply. At the time of writing, the CAT’s reasons for granting relief had not been published. But the decision suggests that Perse was able to satisfy the three-stage test—likely by showing that access to data was critical to its ability to operate, and that it would otherwise suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated in damages. As for expedition, the CAT acted with speed. Perse lodged its application on 22 April 2025, seeking an injunction in relation to two services. The application was heard over two days. The first hearing took place on 6 May 2025 and an injunction was granted on 21 May 2025; the hearing resumed for a second day after further submissions on 14 May 2025 and another injunction was granted on 13 June 2025.
Similarly, in Eurospares v Porsche, the applicant—an independent reseller of luxury car parts—alleged that Porsche unlawfully ceased a longstanding supply arrangement, in breach of both Chapters I and II of the CA98. The CAT granted an interim injunction requiring Porsche to continue supply, accepting that the cessation would likely result in harm that was difficult to quantify and inadequately addressed by damages (see paragraphs 42-47). The CAT also noted that the commercial relationship had been ongoing for several years, and that maintaining the status quo pending trial was the more appropriate course, subject to Eurospares giving a cross undertaking in damages. It therefore found that the balance of convenience favoured intervention (see paragraph 57). Here too, the process was relatively swift—though somewhat slower than it might have been, as Porsche’s agreement to maintain supply pending the interim relief application reduced the immediate urgency. Eurospares filed its application on 20 May 2025, the CAT heard the matter in a one-day hearing on 25 June 2025 and granted the injunction on 28 July 2025.
However, while the CAT is prepared to grant interim relief in the right circumstances, the threshold remains a meaningful one. In Sports Direct v Newcastle United, the retailer argued that the football club had abused its dominant position by refusing to supply it with replica kits, and had further breached the Chapter I Prohibition by striking exclusive deals with JD Sports that allegedly shut Sports Direct out of the market. The CAT refused the application for interim relief. It held that Sports Direct had not shown a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, allowing Newcastle United to proceed with its commercial arrangements (see paragraphs 29 and 35).
Sports Direct appealed. The Court of Appeal took a different view on the first limb of the American Cyanamid test: it disagreed with the CAT’s conclusion that there was no serious issue to be tried. But it ultimately upheld the refusal of relief, agreeing that the balance of convenience still favoured Newcastle United (see paragraphs 31–42).
These cases illustrate that while the CAT continues to apply the three-part test with rigour, it is willing to grant relief quickly in the right circumstances.
What is the fast-track procedure and when is it used?
The FTP is a special process in the CAT designed to help simpler cases move more quickly and with lower legal costs, especially those brought by individuals or small businesses.
Under Rule 58 of the CAT Rules, a case can be assigned to the FTP either at a party’s request or on the CAT’s own initiative. The aim is for the case to reach trial quickly, ideally within six months, while also capping the amount of legal costs that can be recovered.
Whether a case qualifies for the FTP depends on a mix of considerations. These include:
- whether the claimant is an individual or a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME);
- whether the main hearing can be heard in three days or fewer;
- the complexity (or lack of it) in the legal and factual issues;
- the number of witnesses involved;
- the volume of documents and any need for disclosure; and
- the nature and scale of the remedy being sought.
The CAT’s Guide to Proceedings explains that fast-track claims typically arise in two scenarios: where urgent injunctive relief is being sought, or where all sides are on board with a “tightly constrained and exceptionally focused” approach to a damages claim. By contrast, cases that raise knotty legal questions or are likely to involve procedural wrangling, particularly on novel or complex points, are usually not seen as good candidates for the fast track (CAT Guide to Proceedings, paragraph 5.146). Essentially, the CAT is looking for cases that are focused, manageable, and capable of being dealt with efficiently—without sacrificing fairness.
One added feature of the FTP is how it handles interim relief. Under Rule 68(5) of the CAT Rules, where a case is subject to the fast-track, the CAT is able to grant an interim injunction without requiring the claimant to provide a cross-undertaking in damages—or to impose a cap on the undertaking, where appropriate. This is particularly relevant for SMEs or individuals, for whom the financial burden of such undertakings can be a barrier to urgent relief.
This feature reflects the broader aims behind the fast-track regime: as the Government noted when introducing the FTP, it was “principally for the benefit of SMEs,” with a focus on “granting injunctive relief,” recognising that “the most important thing for a business is often for the anti-competitive behaviour to simply stop” (see also Socrates Training Limited v the Law Society of England, paragraph 3).
How has the CAT approached applications for the fast track in recent cases?
Only a handful of cases have made it onto the CAT’s fast track to date, but the CAT appears to be taking a measured, pragmatic approach to applying Rule 58.
Take Up and Running v. Deckers. The claimant—a specialist running retailer—alleged that Deckers had breached the Chapter I prohibition by restricting its ability to market and sell HOKA-branded running shoes, and by engaging in resale price maintenance. Acting without legal representation (a rarity in the CAT), Up and Running applied for the case to be heard under the FTP.
The CAT agreed. Among other things, it noted that the case could be dealt with in a “relatively short hearing, in the region of three days”, and made clear that the three-day benchmark in Rule 58 wasn’t to be applied too rigidly. The CAT also rejected the defendant’s argument that the case was too complex for the fast track, saying it was “sceptical” that causation raised particularly difficult issues (see paragraphs 38–39).
By contrast, in Belle Lingerie v Wacoal EMEA, the CAT declined to assign the case to the FTP. Belle had brought a damages claim over allegedly unlawful distribution arrangements, but the CAT found that the estimated hearing length, the number of witnesses, and the complexity of the issues all pointed against the FTP (see paragraph 63).
In Eurospares v Porsche, the CAT likewise declined to assign the case to the FTP, reasoning that the final hearing would likely exceed the three days or fewer estimate contemplated by Rule 58(3) (paragraph 67). While the CAT acknowledged that exceeding this estimate is not “in itself fatal to the application for allocation to the FTP” it nonetheless described it as “a strong indicator that allocation to the FTP would be inappropriate” (paragraph 69).
These cases suggest that while the CAT is open to using the FTP, it will take a close look at the practicalities—including time estimates, complexity, and whether the issues can be tightly managed—before giving the green light.
Is the fast track the only way to expedite proceedings and manage costs?
No. The CAT has broad powers to expedite proceedings and manage costs, even outside the FTP. Paragraph 5.140 of its Guide to Proceedings confirms that cases not assigned to the FTP may still be treated as urgent, with the CAT able to direct an expedited timetable where circumstances justify it. Rule 53 of the CAT Rules enables the CAT to make directions to ensure a just and proportionate resolution—including on cost management, such as requiring schedules of incurred and estimated costs.
In Eurospares v Porsche, the CAT exercised those wider powers. While declining to assign the case to the FTP, it nevertheless held that the “proceedings [were] urgent and should be resolved expeditiously”, indicating a readiness to hear the matter as soon as six months after the interim injunction hearing. The CAT also directed costs management with a view to capping recoverable costs, accepting Eurospares’ arguments concerning the substantial disparity in the parties’ financial positions and the potential for costs to become unaffordable for the smaller business (paragraph 76).
Similarly, in Sports Direct v Newcastle United, Sports Direct applied for an expedited trial (paragraph 4). The CAT indicated that it was open to such a timetable, stating that it “expect[ed] speedy (and, ideally, agreed) proposals from the parties, failing which the Tribunal will, in short order, make its own proposals” (paragraph 46).
In short, the FTP is not the only route to a swift and cost-conscious hearing.
Conclusion
The message from the CAT is clear: where claimants present a serious case and real urgency, it won’t hesitate to act fast. For those seeking to keep a business afloat, or to prevent the door from being slammed shut, interim injunctions and the CAT’s flexible case management toolkit offer real teeth. But preparation matters, and the bar remains real. Get it right, and the CAT can move decisively when it counts.
Note: Geradin Partners is acting for Eurospares in its proceedings against Porsche.
Leave a Reply