Uddin & Anor v Hussain & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 1127
CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
11 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)
High Court
The judge initially threw out a request for a temporary court order. Instead of deciding who pays legal fees now, the judge said the final decision on fees will come later, after a full trial. The judge also refused permission for an appeal because the initial decision was within the judge's power to make and not likely to be changed.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sought an interim injunction pending trial in England.
- •Interim injunction was dismissed by the court.
- •Consequential matters, including costs and permission to appeal, were addressed.
- •Defendants argued costs should follow the event.
- •Claimant argued costs should be reserved for the trial judge.
- •Claimant sought permission to appeal the dismissal of the interim injunction.
- •The court considered the case of *Melford Capital Partners Ltd v Wingfield Digby* [2021] 1 WLR 1553.
- •The court considered the case of *Autostore v Ocado* [2022] 1 WLR 561.
Legal Principles
Costs generally follow the event, but in interim injunction cases, costs are usually reserved until the trial.
Melford Capital Partners Ltd v Wingfield Digby [2021] 1 WLR 1553, Desquenne, Picnic at Ascot
Permission to appeal is granted if the appellant has a real, not fanciful, prospect of success.
Unspecified
The court has discretion in granting or refusing interim injunctions; this is not lightly overturned on appeal.
Autostore v Ocado [2022] 1 WLR 561
Outcomes
Costs reserved to the trial judge.
The court held that since the claim was not found to be ill-founded, but rather that there were no good grounds for interim relief, it is more appropriate for the trial judge to decide the cost allocation after considering the full merits of the case.
Permission to appeal refused.
The court found that the Claimant did not have a real prospect of success on appeal. The judge's decision was discretionary, based on sufficient factual grounds, and did not confuse the court's supervisory and original jurisdictions.
Similar Cases
Maggie Otto & Ors v Inner Mongolia Happy Lamb & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2920 (Ch)
Cancrie Investments Limited v Zulfiqur al Tanveer Haider (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 2302 (Comm)
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
Jugmohan Boodia & Anor v Richard John Slade
[2023] EWHC 2963 (KB)