AXNOLLER EVENTS LTD v NIHAL MOHAMMED KAMAL BRAKE & Anor.

In an interim freezing-injunction application, the court may decide the costs of the injunction at once where the merits threshold and the strength of the underlying claims make a later trial judge no better placed to decide costs. The possibility of an appeal does not, by itself, require costs to be reserved until the appeal ends. Costs need not be apportioned between proceedings where a single application concerns both and separating the work would produce no meaningful saving. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.2(8), an interim payment on account should be ordered in a reasonable estimated sum unless there is good reason not to do so.

The judgment concerned the costs of a freezing injunction continued after a hearing on 29 April 2022. The injunction related to possession proceedings brought by Axnoller Events Ltd and eviction proceedings involving the Brakes, Tom Conyers D’Arcy and The Chedington Court Estate Ltd.

The court had reserved the costs of administering the injunction, but had to decide the costs of the two hearings at which the injunction was granted or continued. The Brakes argued that costs should await determination of damages and the appeal in the eviction proceedings, and should be apportioned between the two proceedings. The Guy Parties sought their hearing costs and an interim payment on account.

1. Costs of the hearings. The court ordered the Brakes to pay the Guy Parties’ costs of the two freezing-injunction hearings on the standard basis if not agreed. The administration costs were reserved generally, with liberty to apply.
2. Timing. The ordinary practice for an injunction granted on the balance-of-convenience test is often to reserve costs to the trial judge, because the interim court does not assess the merits. That reasoning is less applicable to a freezing injunction, which depends on a good arguable case. The present application was post-judgment and the court had assessed the claims for damages and costs as strong. There was no real prospect that a future court would conclude that there had not been a good arguable case, at least concerning the possession proceedings.
3. The existence of an appeal did not require costs to be reserved. A first-instance judge may decide costs immediately, and the paying party may seek a stay from the lower or appellate court.
4. Apportionment. The injunction was a single application benefiting the Guy Parties in both proceedings. Dividing the costs would have little practical justification because the work required for the possession proceedings alone would not have been significantly less. The costs were therefore not apportioned.
5. Payment on account. The court found no good reason to refuse an interim payment. A payment on account is an estimate, not a summary assessment. In complex, high-value litigation, the costs claimed were high but not a sufficient reason to refuse payment. In the absence of a budget, and with costs on the standard basis, caution was required. The court ordered £35,000, approximately 55% of the certified costs, payable within 14 days.

First-instance decision on the costs of a freezing injunction. The judgment records that permission to appeal had been granted in the eviction proceedings, but no appellate decision is stated.