Injunctions: 3 Situations To Consider Re Costs Flashcards
Which 3 situations are there to consider in relation to costs relating to injunction applications?
- Balance of convenience
- Defendant Successfully resists an injunction
- Quia Timet
What usually happens to costs where an interim injunction has been granted, or agreed by consent, on thr balance of convenience?
Cost should usually reserved until trial of the substantive issue because there is no successful or unsuccessful party at the point me injunction is made, For the purposes of CPR 44.2 (2) (a)
 which case sets out the traditional approach that cost should be reserved where the injunction has been granted on the balance of convenience?
Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd v Richardson 1999
What did Picnic at Ascot v Derigs 2001 consider?
Applied Desquennes et Giral UK Ltd v Richardson 1999
Acknowledge the basic position that costs are normally reserved in the absence of special factors.
What 6 Special Factors did Picnic at Ascot v Derigs 2001 set out?
- Defendant who agrees to an interim injunction should not be subject to more disadvantageous costs order
- There will be cases where the balance of convenience is clear that the Case against the defendant was clear and costs order should be made for wasting time and money
- Case may not go to trial - And undecided cost may make settlement more difficult
- Where the court takes substantive merits into account without evidence having been tested at trial it must be careful before taking them into account on the question of costs
- It may be that a defendant who is successful in resisting an interim injunction or find it easier to persuade the court because he made in his favour since he had no choice but to come to court
6. Ultimately the judge should ask whether it is unfair for the claimants to have their costs of the application even if they go onto lose a trial and whether the opposition to the application was justified.
Which 2015 case followed the approach in Picnic at Ascot and what does it determine?
Hospital MetalCraft Ltd v Optimus British MetalCraft 2015
Where it is not possible to measure success the cost should be reserved
Each case will be judged on its own facts
Which 2014 case adopted a Modern approach / pay-as-you-go principal
Taylor v Burton 2014
What was the pay-as-you-go principal / Modern approach adopted in Taylor v Burton 2014?
Where is in time is gone by costs in the case /  that the successful party at the final hearing will be awarded costs, were are commonly made nowadays they are more rarely made and the winner of an interim application will come in if you ordered his costs regardless of what happens at trial
What did Digby v Melford Capital 2020 firmly set out ?
That Desquenne & Picnic at Ascot represent the law
Costs Interim applications should be reserved to be decided at the final hearing save where special factors justify an alternative approach
What does the White Book summarise in relation to costs orders and interim injunction applications?
Where an interim injunction is granted the court Will normally reserve costs in the application until the determination of the substantive issue
However the court hands are not tied
And if special factors are present in order for cost may be made and those costs are merrily assessed
How does Digby v Melford Capital 2020 assist a defendant who agrees to an injunction on short notice
It may be a pragmatic approach to agree an injunction at short notice and this may provide strong grounds for the court to reserve costs to the end of the trial
Just because the defendant agrees to an injunction being made Does not mean they should be subject to a disadvantageous course order
Parties agreeing sensible arrangements , such as in Digby, should be assured that costs are likely to be reserved 
What scope do the Picnic at Ascot factors provide for arguments about an order for immediate payment of costs / Summary assessment of costs?
- Defendant who agrees to an interim injunction should not be subject to more disadvantageous costs order
- There will be cases where the balance of convenience is clear that the Case against the defendant was clear and costs order should be made for wasting time and money
- Case may not go to trial - And undecided cost may make settlement more difficult
- Where the court takes substantive merits into account without evidence having been tested at trial it must be careful before taking them into account on the question of costs
- It may be that a defendant who is successful in resisting an interim injunction or find it easier to persuade the court because he made in his favour since he had no choice but to come to court
- Ultimately the judge should ask whether it is unfair for the claimants to have their costs of the application even if they go onto lose a trial and whether the opposition to the application was justified.
Does Digby v Melford Capital 2020 make it easier or more difficult for claimants to obtain costs orders at the end interim relief hearings?
Undoubtedly more difficult but not impossible.
The Picnic at Ascot factors provide scope for arguments about an order for immediate payment of costs in specific Scenarios
If a defendant has successfully resisted an injunction being made what may they expect the court order in relation to costs
A defendant has successfully resisted an injunction may expect the court order his costs of the application to be paid by the applicant
What does the case of Interflora v Marks & Spencer 2014 support.?
The general rule as set out in CPR 44.2 (2) (a), That be unsuccessful party pays the successful parties costs, Should apply where the application for an injunction is a freestanding application.
In this case the applicant had failed and there was no reason why the court should depart from the general rule
