Why Euro Car Parks Went to the High Court to Stop the CMA Naming It
Euro Car Parks Ltd v Competition & Markets Authority — a flagship account of the publication dispute, the anonymity arguments, and the Court's refusal of an interim injunction.
Euro Car Parks Limited applied to the High Court for an urgent interim injunction to prevent the CMA publishing its Final Enforcement Notice in a way that identified the company. On 11 February 2026, Mrs Justice Eady DBE refused the injunction. The judgment is reported as [2026] EWHC 471 (KB).
- Case
- Euro Car Parks Ltd v CMA
- Citation
- [2026] EWHC 471 (KB)
- Court
- King's Bench Division
- Judge
- Mrs Justice Eady DBE
- Hearing
- 11 February 2026
The scope of the application
It is important to be precise about what Euro Car Parks did — and did not — ask the Court to do.
An interim injunction preventing the CMA from publishing the Final Enforcement Notice in a form that identified Euro Car Parks, pending determination of related applications and appeal matters.
Euro Car Parks did not seek to prevent publication of the entire Final Enforcement Notice indefinitely, nor to suppress the existence of the penalty.
The company's arguments
These concerns are taken from the judgment and are presented fairly. Seeking to protect one's reputation is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing.
- 01Reputational consequences of being publicly named in an enforcement notice.
- 02Public reaction and possible abuse or threats directed towards individuals connected with the company.
- 03The possibility that the Final Enforcement Notice might later be overturned on appeal — and that publication would then have caused avoidable harm.
The judgment records these as the company's expressed concerns. They are presented here as arguments advanced in litigation, not as admissions or as established fact.
Open justice and the naming of regulated companies
The Court weighed the company's concerns against competing public-interest considerations. The reasoning is summarised here; the full analysis is in the judgment.
The principle that justice is administered in public, and that regulatory decisions should generally be open to scrutiny.
The public interest in knowing which companies are subject to enforcement action by the regulator.
The role of publication in maintaining confidence in the regulatory system.
The deterrent effect that publication of enforcement notices is intended to have.
The High Court refused the interim injunction.
The Court did not grant the relief Euro Car Parks sought. The CMA subsequently publicly identified the company and announced the £473,000 penalty. The refusal of an interim injunction is a procedural ruling on interim relief — it is not a final determination of the underlying appeal.