HC Deb 30 July 1956 vol 557 cc975-6

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 27, leave out from beginning to "breach" in line 28 and insert: Without prejudice to any other relief which may be granted in proceedings against any person in respect of a breach or apprehended".

Mr. Walker-Smith

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It might be for convenience if we could at the same time consider the Amendment in line 30. We are here dealing with a subsection which gives power to the court to grant an injunction in proper circumstances covering all goods of the supplier and not just the goods which are the subject of the sale in breach of a resale price condition. The subsection reads: If in any proceedings it is proved that goods sold by the plaintiff have been resold by the defendant in breach of a condition…. In other words, in order to found the case for a grant of this type of injunction there has to be a resale and not the apprehension of a resale.

Hon. and learned Gentlemen will know that there is a type of injunction called a quia timat injunction, which can be got on the basis of an apprehension that that is to happen. It has been thought that the grant of this specific type of injunction, covering all the goods, might be to exclude other remedies, and so the Amendment is designed to make it clear that the subsection does not exclude the grant of a quia timat injunction against, not the generality of goods, but the particular goods advertised or offered for resale.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 23, line 30, after "fit" insert: upon proof that goods sold by the plaintiff have been re-sold by the defendant in breach of any such condition".