Uddin & Anor v Hussain & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1127
Andrew Hicks Engineering Limited v Jenk Associates Limited & Anor
4 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2031 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies fought over land rights. The first fight ended with a settlement. The second fight was ruled unnecessary because it was about the same thing, so the company that started the second fight has to pay the other company's legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over rights of access, use of common areas, and services at Western Barn Industrial Estate in Devon.
- •First proceedings settled via Part 36 offer, resulting in £500,000 payment and freehold transfer.
- •Second proceedings initiated by claimant for alleged interference with leasehold rights post-settlement.
- •Claimant applied for an interim injunction in the second proceedings, which was resolved by defendants giving undertakings.
- •Both parties now seek determination of costs associated with the interim injunction application in the second proceedings.
Legal Principles
Costs are at the court's discretion (Senior Courts Act 1981, section 51(1); CPR rule 44.2(1)).
Senior Courts Act 1981, CPR rule 44.2(1)
Generally, the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party (CPR rule 44.2(2)(a)).
CPR rule 44.2(2)(a)
The court considers all circumstances, including conduct and settlement offers, when determining costs (CPR rule 44.2(4)).
CPR rule 44.2(4)
In interim injunction cases decided on balance of convenience, costs are usually reserved until trial (Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd v Richardson; Picnic at Ascot Inc v Derigs).
Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd v Richardson, Picnic at Ascot Inc v Derigs
'Without prejudice' privilege does not apply when material is relevant to construing a contract (Oceanbulk Shipping v TMT Asia).
Oceanbulk Shipping v TMT Asia
Abuse of process occurs when relitigating settled matters (Boydell v NZP Ltd).
Boydell v NZP Ltd
Outcomes
Claimant's second claim deemed an abuse of process.
The claims in the second proceedings substantially overlapped with the issues settled in the first proceedings. The claimant attempted to relitigate matters already resolved.
Claimant ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the interim injunction application in the second proceedings.
The second proceedings were an abuse of process, negating any basis for awarding the claimant costs. The court lacked sufficient factual basis to determine costs otherwise.
Similar Cases
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)
Maia Luxury Limited v Luxierge Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 454 (KB)