The High Court has granted an interlocutory injunction to protect a Wexford dairy distribution business while its dispute with Glanbia plc proceeds to trial. The court said the proposed changes to the Gorey route would probably cause the business to collapse before the full action was heard.
The application was brought by Shay Hayden and Baínne Aláinn Limited, the company through which he operates some or all of his dairy distribution business. The dispute concerns Glanbia’s plan, following its acquisition of Wexford Creamery, to reduce Hayden’s Gorey round and transfer a substantial part of it to the Creamery’s distributor.
Hayden says the changes would breach a 1995 distribution agreement and make his business commercially unviable. He also argued that lost customers, goodwill and growth opportunities could not be adequately compensated with damages. Glanbia disputed his account of the agreement and the likely financial effects. It said the restructuring would help integrate Wexford Creamery and that it had offered increased volumes on another route and financial assistance; Hayden disputed that compensation had been offered.
The court found that the evidence did not rule out a real prospect of Hayden succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at trial. It also concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that without interim protection the business would not survive to the full hearing. The judge considered the potential damage to Hayden’s business and personal finances greater than the likely harm to Glanbia from delaying its proposed changes.
Glanbia had also sought to discharge an interim injunction granted without notice on 1 September 2014, alleging that Hayden’s affidavit omitted material information. It pointed to an August 27 meeting at which it said compensation was offered, and to Hayden’s description of a 2012 dispute over butter supplies as resolved “amicably”. The judge said the meeting could have been relevant, but Hayden’s account appeared to reflect an honest mistake if mistaken. The court did not consider the omissions a reason to discharge the interim order or refuse interlocutory relief.
The court granted the injunction and accepted Hayden’s undertaking to pay damages if required. It did not settle the final wording: the judge said the proposed terms were too broad because they would cover actions whose lawfulness was not disputed, and said the wording would be considered with counsel. The judgment stressed that its views were tentative and did not decide the parties’ ultimate rights at trial.