Summary of Judgment — High Court

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment, delivered by Judge Bolger on 4 December 2025, concerns an interlocutory application by the Plaintiffs for mandatory injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to restore the Plaintiffs' advertising accounts on the Defendant's platform and/or for alternative relief, including return of prepaid monies and access to billing and invoice records. The Plaintiffs are companies registered in a foreign jurisdiction ("The Foreign State") which organised clients to place advertising on the Defendant's platform. On 20 December 2024 the Defendant disabled the Plaintiffs' advertising accounts, removing approximately 11,560 client advertisements, blocking new placements and denying access to invoice and billing records. The Plaintiffs allege retention by the Defendant of pre-payments of approximately €5 million. Proceedings were issued on 26 June 2025 and the interlocutory application for injunctive relief was filed on 11 July 2025 (returned to 28 July 2025). The court refused the application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiffs have established a "strong case" (the higher standard applicable to mandatory interlocutory relief) that they are entitled to an order restoring their disabled accounts and/or other mandatory relief.
2. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy such that interlocutory injunctive relief should be refused.
3. Whether the Plaintiffs can rely on the course of dealings and alleged representations (including via WhatsApp messages) to disapply or estop reliance on the Defendant's written terms and conditions.
4. Whether the Defendant's retention of prepaid funds and summary disablement of accounts engages section 5 of the Competition Act 2002 (abuse of a dominant position) so as to justify interlocutory relief.
5. Whether alleged breaches of the Digital Services Act 2024 give rise to injunctive relief in these proceedings.
6. Whether the balance of justice (including delay and adequacy of damages) favours granting interlocutory relief.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Plaintiffs sought restoration of accounts and related relief to preserve the commercial status quo pending trial, asserting urgent operational, financial and reputational harm arising from the disablement.
• They alleged contractual rights to notice and to engagement before suspension arising from the course of dealings and representations between the parties, relying on extensive WhatsApp communications.
• They contended damages would be inadequate because of the scale of retained prepaid monies, impaired operational visibility, tax and accounting risks, and loss of clients and goodwill.
• The Plaintiffs pleaded abuse of dominant position under section 5 of the Competition Act 2002 (in their plenary summons) and alleged breaches of representations and contract; they also reference the Digital Services Act 2024 (though not pleaded).
• They sought interlocutory relief to obtain billing and invoice documentation held by the Defendant.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant denied the alleged representations and relied on the written terms and conditions the Plaintiffs had accepted, which permit suspension without notice and retention of prepaid monies in certain circumstances.
• It argued that the relevant status quo for interlocutory purposes is the position immediately before commencement of proceedings and relied on delay (204 days between suspension and the interlocutory application) as undermining the Plaintiffs' case.
• The Defendant produced screenshots of alleged "scam ads" and asserted the Plaintiffs had contractual responsibility to ensure third-party compliance with advertising standards.
• The Defendant contended that any remedies under the Digital Services Act 2024 are limited and that the Act does not give rise to injunctive relief in these proceedings.
• The Defendant argued that even if the Plaintiffs' accounts were restored, it would suffer unquantifiable harm in being required to permit allegedly non-compliant advertisers to operate on its platform.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Farina v. X Internet Unlimited Company [2025] IEHC 514	Mandatory relief to reinstate suspended accounts attracts the higher "strong case" standard.	The court accepted that the strong case test applies to the Plaintiffs' mandatory relief application and applied that higher standard in its analysis.
Ryanair DAC v. Skyscanner Holdings Limited and Skyscanner 2018 Limited [2022] IECA 64	Principle that the status quo for interlocutory purposes is what prevailed immediately before commencement of proceedings.	The Defendant relied on this authority to argue the relevant status quo and the court noted the delay in seeking interlocutory relief when assessing the balance of justice.
Nolan Transport (Oaklands) v. Halligan 1994 WJSC HC 1550	Requirement of "reasonable expedition" expected of an applicant for interlocutory relief.	The court applied the principle that delay undermines an interlocutory application and found the Plaintiffs had not shown reasonable expedition.
Wallace v. Kershaw [2019] IEHC 382	Contextual comparison on delay and circumstances where interlocutory relief was granted where defendant had no answer to the claim.	The Plaintiffs relied on this case; the court distinguished its facts, noting no similar finding of a defendant having no answer was made here.
Merck Sharp and Dohme (Supreme Court)	Judicial caution about assertions of inadequacy of damages in a commercial context.	The court invoked the principle to scrutinise the Plaintiffs' assertion that damages are inadequate in commercial disputes.
Yoplait Ireland Limited v. Nutricia Ireland Limited [2025] IECA 163	Costs on interlocutory applications should be determined unless justice requires otherwise; interlocutory application standard differs from trial merits.	The court relied on the decision when forming an indicative view to reserve costs to the trial judge and to recognize that interlocutory failure does not preclude success at trial.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by applying the higher "strong case" standard appropriate to mandatory interlocutory relief. It reviewed the written terms and conditions governing the parties' commercial relationship (including commercial terms, terms of service, advertising and community standards and payment terms) and observed those terms expressly placed responsibility on the Plaintiffs to ensure that third parties on whose behalf they placed advertisements would comply with the Defendant's terms.

The court analysed the Plaintiffs' reliance on course of dealings and WhatsApp messages to establish contractual rights to notice and pre-suspension engagement, and to found an estoppel displacing the written terms. The court found the Plaintiffs did not identify clear, specific post-contractual representations on which they relied to their detriment. The WhatsApp exchanges evidenced collaboration, particularly on payment issues, but did not disclose explicit promises of ongoing access or a right to notice before summary suspension.

The court considered the Defendant's evidence of alleged non-compliant advertisements (screenshots of "scam ads") and the Plaintiffs' inability to show they could not investigate or that the screenshots lacked identifiable information. The court found the screenshots contained account name information and that the Plaintiffs, given their contractual responsibilities, had at least some capacity to investigate.

Turning to statutory arguments, the court held that alleged breaches of the Digital Services Act 2024 did not give rise to injunctive relief in these proceedings (and the Plaintiffs had not pleaded the Act in the plenary summons). On competition law, the court observed that the Plaintiffs are customers of the Defendant and not competitors; consequently, the EU Commission's finding of dominance in related markets did not establish a strong case under section 5 of the Competition Act 2002 for the specific conduct complained of here.

The court weighed delay and adequacy of damages in the balance of justice. It found the Plaintiffs delayed unreasonably in seeking interlocutory relief (noting communications and pre-action correspondence timeline and the 204-day gap). The court was sceptical of the Plaintiffs' claim that damages would be inadequate, noting partial tax returns had been made, absence of corroborative financial exhibits, and social media evidence of the Plaintiffs hiring in May 2025. The court concluded the Defendant would suffer harm less amenable to compensation if forced to restore accounts allowing allegedly non-compliant advertisers to operate.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court REFUSED the interlocutory injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiffs and declined to craft alternative relief, including orders for return of monies retained by the Defendant or for access to the Plaintiffs' billing and records.

Implications:

• The Plaintiffs failed to meet the strong case standard for mandatory interlocutory relief; their claim that course of dealings and WhatsApp messages displaced or estopped reliance on the written terms was not established at this stage.
• The court considered delay and the adequacy of damages to weigh against granting interlocutory relief; it accepted the Defendants' contention that restoration could cause unquantified harm.
• Alleged breaches of the Digital Services Act 2024 in these proceedings did not give rise to injunctive relief; remedies under the Act may be limited to damages or other statutory mechanisms.
• The court recognised that disputes about retention of monies and access to records can be addressed at trial (or by expedited trial or case management directions) and reserved costs to be determined by the trial judge, with the court expressing an indicative view to reserve costs to trial rather than make a final interlocutory costs order.
• No new legal precedent was established by granting novel relief; the decision resolves the interlocutory application without disapplying the written contractual terms at this stage.

Additional Procedural and Administrative Details

The court indicated it will hear the parties further on costs and any other orders at 10:00am on 16 December 2025 and invited written submissions to be filed at least 48 hours in advance if desired.

Counsel (anonymised): Attorneys Abrahamson and Woulfe appeared for the Plaintiffs; Attorneys Smith and Downey appeared for the Defendant.