Pinterest, Inc v Premium Interest Ltd & Anor

Undertakings offered in support of an application are not necessarily irrevocable orders where the court declines the application and has not accepted the undertakings. Where a defendant concedes that an issue should be removed from its pleaded case but resists strike-out or summary judgment, the court may grant summary judgment on that issue if it is the appropriate means of finally determining it. Costs remain governed by the substance of the parties’ conduct and success on the issues, including issues that fell away because of a late admission. The court may summarily assess costs where the amount is not challenged in principle.

This judgment determined four issues arising from the court’s earlier judgment dated 24 March 2015. The claimant disputed whether undertakings offered by the defendants in support of an application for a stay should be recited in the order. The parties also disputed the appropriate order concerning paragraph 26 of the Defence and the costs payable on the claimant’s and defendants’ applications.

1. The defendants’ undertakings were offered in support of their application for a stay. Since the court declined to order a stay, it had not accepted the undertakings. They were therefore not to be recited in the order.
2. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the claimant in respect of the issue raised by paragraph 26 of the Defence. That was the appropriate order because it finally determined the issue and avoided the need for the defendants to serve an Amended Defence deleting the paragraph.
3. The claimant was entitled to its costs of the application concerning both issues. The first issue fell away because the defendants accepted that filing the CTM Application constituted a threat, which led the claimant to accept that its claim should be assessed as at 31 January 2012. The defendants ought to have made that admission in their Defence. The defendants fought and lost on the second issue, and could not belatedly argue that it had also fallen away.
4. The claimant’s costs of that application were summarily assessed at £20,000. The defendants’ costs application was also decided against them, and their costs payable to the claimant were summarily assessed at £15,000.