Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Costs of unsuccessful application for injunction awarded to respondent
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court awards defendant the costs of an unsuccessful application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain it from operating an 'embargo' on deliveries or collections by the plaintiff company, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the defendant had succeeded in resisting the application, and was prima facie entitled to its costs; (b) the fact that the plaintiff had succeeded in some arguments in showing that it had an arguable case was not sufficient to vary the usual costs order; and (c) the failure to hold a mediation conference in response to a 'hint' by the court was not a basis to vary the costs order, especially in circumstances where a settlement meeting had taken place.
Supplemental judgment - earlier refusal of interlocutory injunction - costs - application to restrain company from exercising an 'embargo' on deliveries or collections - damages ruled to be an adequate remedy - section 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 - Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether court should depart from the rule that costs should follow the event - whether to reserve costs - whether court could justly adjudicate on liability for costs - whether a serious question to be tried - success on contested matters - whether injunction sought was mandatory rather than prohibitory in nature - arguable case - argument that plaintiff did not have 'clean hands'.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
