Mannings Organisation Limited & Anor v Joseph Henry Manning

Where an interim injunction preserves the position pending trial and the underlying merits remain unresolved, the court may find that there is no successful party and reserve the injunction costs to the trial judge. Costs of a separate, unsuccessful discharge application will ordinarily follow the event where the respondent unsuccessfully challenges the applicant’s disclosure. Further disclosure or evidence requires a properly particularised justification. A party is not entitled to a further opportunity to present evidence merely because it would be convenient. A claim may remain under Part 8 where oral evidence and cross-examination can be directed without additional pleadings.

This was a consequential judgment following the court’s judgment of 14 May 2026, which continued parts of an interim injunction and dismissed the defendant’s application to discharge it. The court determined costs, further case management directions and a request concerning related proceedings before the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain.

The principal issues were whether the costs of the injunction and discharge applications should be reserved or awarded, whether further disclosure and witness evidence were justified, whether the claim should remain under Part 8, and whether the court should clarify the effect of the injunction on the Guild proceedings.

1. Costs of the injunction. The injunction application and discharge application were separate matters. The injunction preserved the position pending trial, while the merits depended on contested evidence that could fairly be resolved only after a trial. Adopting the approach in Richardson v Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd, the court held that there were no successful or unsuccessful parties. The costs of the injunction application were reserved to the trial judge.
2. Costs of the discharge application. The defendant forcefully pursued and lost the application to discharge the injunction. His challenge based on alleged failure of full and frank disclosure did not justify a different costs approach. The claimants were entitled to their costs of the discharge application, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
3. Further case management. An expedited trial remained justified and was ordered for the first available date after 20 July 2026, with a four-day estimate and one day for pre-reading. Further disclosure was refused because the claimants identified no specific issue, document or class of documents requiring it. Further witness evidence was also refused. The claimants had already had opportunities to serve evidence, including reply evidence, and had not identified a good reason for a further opportunity.
4. Part 8 procedure. No additional statements of case were required. The claim remained governed by Part 8. Witnesses who had given affidavits or witness statements were required to attend for oral evidence and cross-examination under CPR 8.6(2) and (3).
5. Guild proceedings and permission to appeal. The court declined to provide the requested clarification concerning the Guild proceedings, leaving the parties and Guild officers to manage those proceedings. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds had no real prospects of success and there was no other compelling reason to grant permission.

The judgment was a consequential decision following the same court’s judgment of 14 May 2026, which continued elements of the injunction and dismissed the discharge application. An order reflecting that judgment was made on 18 May 2026.