Northern Powerhouse Developments Limited & Ors v Gavin Lee Woodhouse
[2023] EWHC 1331 (Ch)
Photobooth Props Limited & Anor. v NEPBH Ltd & Ors.
25 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 755 (IPEC)
High Court
Someone didn't pay court-ordered money. The other side wanted their case thrown out unless they paid. The judge said no, because of special rules and the fact that they hadn't fully looked at why the person couldn't pay. They can still get the money another way.
Key Facts
- •Claim for copyright infringement, breach of contract, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- •Defendants failed to pay interim costs ordered on 2 March 2023.
- •Claimants applied for an 'unless' order: strike out the Defence unless payment made.
- •Interim costs order was unusual in IPEC, granted due to unforeseen trial delay.
- •Defendants argued financial hardship, provided evidence (disputed by Claimants).
- •Defendants made further applications (N245) for installment payments, dismissed as premature.
- •Claimants argued Defendants had no intention to pay, threatened bankruptcy.
Legal Principles
Imposition of sanctions for non-payment of costs orders involves the exercise of discretion under the court's inherent jurisdiction.
Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair [2017] EWHC 2424 (Comm)
Costs of interim hearings in IPEC are usually reserved to the trial's conclusion (Part 63 rule 26(1)).
IPEC Guide
Article 6 ECHR: Potential loss of the right to defend the action.
Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair [2017] EWHC 2424 (Comm); Harb v Aziz [2017] EWHC 258 (Ch)
CPR 3.3(5): A party affected by an order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed.
CPR 3.3(5)
CPR 44: Court's general discretion as to costs.
CPR 44
CPR 63.26: Immediate payment of costs.
CPR 63.26
Outcomes
Claimants' application for an 'unless' order dismissed.
Court considered the unusual nature of the interim costs order in the IPEC context, the availability of alternative enforcement methods, the lack of substantive consideration of the Defendants' financial evidence, and potential Article 6 ECHR implications. The Court found that dismissing the application was the just outcome considering the overriding objective and relevant policy issues.