- Court of Appeal—‘pay as you go’ costs orders wrong in interim injunction proceedings (Digby v Melford Capital Partners)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Following the breakdown of a business relationship, the respondents sought interim injunctions against Mr Wingfield Digby. The injunctions were made and then continued. At the hearing of the application for the injunctions to continue, Justice Birss was referred to binding authorities which suggested that the appropriate costs order should be for costs to be reserved. Birss J concluded that modern practice was for costs to be ordered on a ‘pay as you go’ basis, that the respondents had been successful and so Mr Wingfield Digby should pay the respondents’ costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal restated the principle that, when an interim injunction is made on the balance of convenience, costs should be reserved unless there are special circumstances. It also observed that it is appropriate to reserve costs where there is inadequate time to consider the issue of costs the attention it requires. Written by Alex Bagnall, technical manager at Total Legal Solutions.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial