BLL v STI
| Judge | Mr Justice Constable |
| Judgment | 3 July 2026 |
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Claimant | BLL |
| Defendant | STI |
Summary
A gift-card business asked the court for an urgent mandatory order, in support of arbitration, to force its Canadian software provider to keep hosting and supporting its online platform and to deposit the materials needed to rebuild it. The application was made without notice under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, together with permission to serve the claim outside the jurisdiction.
The applicant said it faced the platform being switched off. The provider argued there was no true urgency, that the applicant's case was not strong enough for a mandatory injunction, and that damages would be an adequate remedy, having offered to preserve and hand over the applicant's own data.
Mr Justice Constable refused the injunction. The claim failed on urgency, on the demanding merits threshold for mandatory relief, and on the adequacy of damages, so it was unnecessary to weigh the balance of convenience separately.
Background and facts
BLL issued digital media gift cards through an online platform. The software, hosting and support that ran the platform were provided by STI, a company based in Canada, whose position in the chain came about through a series of corporate acquisitions after the original 2016 development contract.
In February 2026 a cyber incident left the platform inoperative until early March. In the correspondence that followed, STI gave notice that it would stop hosting and supporting the platform, initially from 30 June 2026, later extended to 31 August 2026. BLL sought an escrow-style deposit of all materials needed to recreate and operate the platform.
BLL applied without notice for wide mandatory injunctive relief under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, together with permission to serve out under CPR 62.5(1)(b) and for alternative service. STI, though based out of the jurisdiction, filed evidence and attended, and both sides agreed the hearing should be treated in substance as the return date.
The issue
The court had to decide whether to grant an interim mandatory injunction in support of arbitration under section 44. That raised three questions: whether the statutory urgency threshold was met, whether BLL's case was strong enough to justify mandatory relief, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy.
The decision
Mr Justice Constable refused the relief. He held that urgency is part of the jurisdictional threshold under section 44(3), and that any urgency here had been brought about by BLL itself:
"To the extent that there is presently an urgency, it has been caused or materially contributed to by BLL's own failure to issue a Notice of Arbitration."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 66
He confirmed that a mandatory injunction demands more of an applicant than a prohibitory one. The applicant must generally satisfy the court to a high degree of assurance that it will succeed at trial; the case must be "unusually strong and clear", the standard drawn from Eraaya Lifespaces Ltd v Elara Capital Plc [2025] EWHC 1506 (Comm). BLL's case did not reach that level, given the genuine dispute over whether the hosting and support were being provided under the original development contract at all.
On the third ground, the judge held that damages would be an adequate remedy, particularly as STI had offered to preserve and provide all data and bespoke software specific to BLL's site, so there was no material risk of loss. He set out the combined effect:
"The application for injunctive relief fails."Mr Justice Constable, paragraph 94
Because the claim failed on urgency, on the merits threshold and on adequacy of damages, it was unnecessary to consider the balance of convenience separately. The applications for service out and alternative service, which the parties agreed stood or fell with the substantive relief, failed with it.
Practical implications
Section 44 urgency is a jurisdictional gate rather than a discretionary factor. An applicant seeking court relief in support of arbitration must show real urgency to get through the door under section 44(3). Where the applicant has sat on its position, the urgency threshold may not be met.
Self-induced urgency undermines an application. A party that knows the other side's stance and does not act, here by failing to issue a Notice of Arbitration even on a protective basis, may find the court treats the resulting time pressure as of its own making rather than a reason to intervene.
Mandatory injunctions carry a higher merits threshold. To obtain an order compelling positive action, an applicant must generally satisfy the court to a high degree of assurance that it will win, an unusually strong and clear case. A live dispute over the underlying contractual right will usually defeat that standard, especially where the substance is for the arbitrators.
An offer to preserve and hand over data can defeat the claim. Where the respondent offers to preserve and provide the material the applicant fears losing, the court is likely to find damages an adequate remedy and refuse an injunction. Recording such an offer in the recitals to the order can resolve the practical concern without coercive relief.
Practice points
- Urgency under section 44(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 is a jurisdictional threshold; without it the court has no power to grant relief in support of arbitration.
- Issue a Notice of Arbitration promptly, if necessary on a protective basis; delay can turn urgency into a self-induced problem that defeats the application.
- A mandatory injunction requires the applicant to satisfy the court to a high degree of assurance, an unusually strong and clear case, which a genuine dispute over the underlying right will usually defeat.
- An opponent's offer to preserve and provide the material at risk may render damages an adequate remedy; consider recording the offer in the recitals rather than pressing for a coercive order.