Court dismisses EE Limited's injunction request

In a landmark ruling delivered on May 15, the High Court of Justice's Technology and Construction Court dismissed EE Limited's application for an interim injunction against Avanti Broadband Limited. This decision clarified the contractual obligations concerning satellite mobile backhaul services critical to EE's operations. The court case arose as EE sought to prevent Avanti from suspending or altering these services, which are essential for the functioning of its mobile network.

EE, part of BT Group and one of the largest mobile network providers in the UK, had established contracts with Avanti in June 2016 for satellite services designed to support its expanding network. These services play a crucial role, especially in regions where traditional connectivity options like microwave and fibre are not viable. The agreements included a Supply of Goods and/or Services Agreement (GSA) along with a Statement of Work (SOW), outlining the terms under which Avanti would provide its vital services.

However, complications arose in January 2025 when Avanti threatened to withdraw these services, proposing an increased fee model under a newly suggested contract. EE contested this hike, characterising it as excessive, and sought an injunction to ensure that Avanti maintained uninterrupted services until the legal dispute could be resolved.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the two companies had engaged in negotiations concerning contract renewal, with Avanti suggesting new pricing. EE argued that Avanti’s refusal to deliver services at prior rates constituted a breach of their existing agreements.

As the court assessed the legal standards for issuing interim injunctions, it scrutinised whether EE had shown a "serious issue to be tried." A key question was whether Avanti had a contractual obligation to supply services or if that obligation depended on the acceptance of new terms. Avanti argued it had no active obligations due to the structure of the GSA, claiming it provided a basis for future contracts attached to accepted Purchase Orders (POs).

Judge Mr Justice Waksman conducted an extensive analysis of both parties' arguments while considering the contractual framework. He pointed out a clause in the GSA that mandated any binding contract formation to hinge on an accepted PO, something that had not been established in this case. He deemed EE's understanding of a perpetual obligation for service provision from Avanti as erroneous.

Additionally, the court invalidated EE’s argument that service provision formed an indefeasible, unending obligation, asserting that, without newly negotiated terms, Avanti was entitled to modify its service fee structure.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that EE failed to demonstrate a serious issue warranting the injunction. He concluded that considerations regarding damages and convenience did not apply since the merits of EE’s case had not been substantiated.

This ruling notably underscores the critical need for precise contractual terms and the importance of maintaining well-defined agreements. For EE, the judgment hampers its immediate operational capabilities and raises challenges in seeking alternative satellite service suppliers. As the legal context of commercial contracts changes, businesses must carefully examine their agreements and seek clarity during negotiations to mitigate risks similar to those confronted by EE in this case.