Kingsridge Limited v Mario Stavrou & Anor

Where an interim injunction application is not substantively heard and the hearing instead serves to organise evidence and timetable the future application, the court may reserve the general costs. Costs unequivocally wasted at the hearing may nevertheless be ordered immediately. The court may identify and order payment of counsel’s fees while leaving other costs for determination with the substantive application, particularly where work done at the hearing will assist a later hearing.

The claimant applied for an interim injunction. At the hearing, the injunction was not granted. The hearing instead addressed the evidence required and the timetable for the substantive application. The first defendant argued that the hearing had been unnecessary and that he had substantially succeeded. The court determined the costs of the hearing.

1. The injunction sought at the hearing was not granted and the substantive application was deferred. The hearing had therefore not achieved the result initially sought by the claimant.
2. A substantial part of the costs was likely to relate to the future application. The court accordingly reserved those costs rather than making a granular order which might complicate the later assessment.
3. The fees of counsel were identified as an unequivocal item of wasted costs. The claimant was ordered to pay £4,500 plus applicable VAT to the first defendant within 14 days.
4. The remaining costs were reserved. Any benefit obtained from preparation for the future hearing could be reflected in the first defendant’s brief fee for that hearing, avoiding over-compensation.