The caselaw that was quoted in the Croft case was Shelfer v City of London Electrical Lighting Co.
http://casebrief.wikia.com/wiki/Shel...al_Lighting_Co.
The discussion on that site quotes one of the judges, LLJ Smith, sayaing that:
"when there are four conditions present, then damages should be given instead of an injunction:
1.if the injury to the plaintiff's legal right is small,
2.if it is one which is capable of being estimated in money,
3.if it is one that can be compensated by a small money payment, and
4.if it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction"
To destroy someone's business by making it impossible for them to carry on seems to me "oppressive", but that is only one condition. No doubt this argument will run and run.
John