or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court, having granted the plaintiffs an interlocutory injunction, awards the costs of the interlocutory injunction to the successful plaintiffs but places a stay on the costs order pending the trial of the trial of the substantive action, on the grounds that questions have been raised which may not be disposed in the plaintiff’s favour at trial.
Costs of legal proceedings – High Court granted injunction – plaintiff’s seeking their costs – defendant want the costs adjourned - applicable rules and principles – argued that based on the statutory provisions and rules set out above, that having succeeded in obtaining an interlocutory injunction the plaintiffs should be awarded their costs as costs should follow the event – argued that the defendant’s actions were aggressive and unreasonable and effectively forced the plaintiffs to bring the application – argued that the application was based on agreed (or in any event not disputed) documentation and not on disputed facts - in the course of the application for the interlocutory injunction the plaintiffs identified three arguments, two of which were found to meet the required threshold of a fair question to be tried – defendants argue that a different picture may emerge on the facts, the defendants submit that the trial court would be in a better position to assess the justice of the costs of the interlocutory hearing - satisfied that it is possible for this court to adjudicate justly upon the interlocutory application at this stage – plaintiffs have succeeded - stay the execution of that order pending the trial of the action - questions which have been raised may not at trial be disposed of in the plaintiff’s favour – conduct - having unsuccessfully opposed the injunction application, the defendants were inevitably exposed to an application for costs against them – costs of interlocutory injunction awarded to successful plaintiff but a stay placed on the costs order pending the trial of the action
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.