CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)
Uddin & Anor v Hussain & Anor
19 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1127
Court of Appeal
Two families are fighting over a house. A judge made one family pay the other's legal fees for a temporary court order. A higher court said the judge was wrong and that the fees should be decided later after the main case is finished, because that's the usual rule for these kinds of temporary orders.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against costs order made by Bacon J on 1 November 2022 in favour of claimants (Uddin & Begum) against defendants (Hussain & Islam) for an interim relief application, totaling £44,784.30.
- •Dispute concerns ownership of a property in Walsall, with claimants being the parents of the first defendant.
- •Claimants obtained an interim injunction preventing defendants from disposing of the property ex parte on 25 October 2022.
- •Defendants instructed solicitors on 28 October 2022 and provided an undertaking not to sell the property on 31 October 2022.
- •Bacon J awarded claimants' costs summarily despite the undertaking and defendants' absence from the hearing.
- •Defendants appealed, arguing procedural irregularities, irrelevant considerations by Bacon J, and the inappropriateness of summary costs assessment.
Legal Principles
Court has wide discretion on costs under CPR Part 44.
CPR Part 44
Where an interim injunction 'holds the ring' until trial, costs are usually reserved (Desquenne principle).
White Book 2023, 44.2.15.1; Richardson v Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd; Picnic at Ascot v Kalus Derigs; Wingfield Digby v Melford Capital Partners; Koza Ltd v Koza Altin Isletmeleri AS
Special factors may justify departure from the Desquenne principle (Picnic at Ascot).
Picnic at Ascot v Kalus Derigs (paragraphs 7-16)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Bacon J's approach was wrong in law as she failed to consider established principles on costs for interim injunctions to 'hold the ring'. No special factors justified departing from the usual rule of reserving costs.
Costs order quashed.
The order for defendants to pay claimants' costs was set aside.
New order made: Costs of the interim injunction application reserved pending the outcome of the main claim.
This aligns with the usual practice for 'hold the ring' injunctions.