Garden Cottage Foods v Milk Marketing Board [1984] AC 130
Civil procedure; abuse of dominant position; damages and injunctive relief
Facts
The Milk Marketing Board (MMB) produced most of the bulk butter in the UK. They announced they would no longer sell any to Garden Cottage Foods (GCF). They would henceforth only sell to four specific distributors. GCF asserted this was an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Treaty of Rome 1957 Art.86 and sought an injunction to prevent the policy being implemented. At first instance, it was held that there was a serious issue to be tried but damages would be an appropriate remedy if the claimants succeeded, and injunctive relief was, therefore, refused. The Court of Appeal doubted that damages would be an available remedy and granted the injunction. The MMB appealed.
Issues
The MMB asserted that if there are rights of action available for breach of Art.86 and remedial damages are available, the Court of Appeal could not overrule the decision of the judge at first instance who had exercised his discretion. Further, the injunction as drafted should not have been granted because it lacked precision. GCF argued the Treaty had direct effect in the UK creating individual rights which the UK courts should enforce. Where competition matters are in issue, public policy dictates that injunctive relief should be granted where there is a risk of damage to the competitive structure, even if the standard conditions for injunctive relief are not satisfied.
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was allowed. It was arguable that breach of Art.86 would result in individual rights of action to pursue compensation. The first instance judge was entitled to hold that damages would provide an appropriate remedy, and there was no justifiable basis on which the Court of Appeal could interfere with his discretion to refuse injunctive relief.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the 1984 House of Lords decision. However, readers should note several important legal developments that affect the broader context.
Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU) prohibits abuse of a dominant position. Following Brexit, EU Treaty provisions no longer apply directly in UK domestic law. The relevant domestic framework is now the Competition Act 1998, Chapter II prohibition (section 18), which mirrors the substance of Article 102 TFEU. The principle that breach of competition law can give rise to a private right of action for damages in UK courts is now firmly established by statute: the Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced a stand-alone damages regime before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and the Competition Act 1998 (as amended) provides the current legislative framework for private enforcement. The Milk Marketing Board itself was abolished following the Agriculture Act 1993.
The procedural principle from this case — that a first-instance judge’s discretion to refuse an interim injunction, where damages are an adequate remedy applying American Cyanamid principles, should not be overturned by the Court of Appeal without proper justification — remains good law. As a case study on the intersection of competition law and injunctive relief, the decision retains historical and doctrinal significance, but students should be aware that the Treaty of Rome provisions it discusses have been superseded in the UK domestic context.
