header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 April 2021 / David Gray-Jones
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Interim injunctions: all costs reserved

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
42828
Do not be afraid to take a pragmatic, proportionate approach to injunction applications, says David Gray-Jones
  • In Digby v Melford Capital Partners, the Court of Appeal confirmed that costs in interim injunctions should be reserved, barring special circumstances which dictate otherwise.
  • The decision indicates that a litigant who takes a pragmatic approach to litigation by consenting to the making of an interim injunction will not be punished for this by having a costs order made against them.

In its recent judgment in Digby v Melford Capital Partners (Holdings) LLP and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1647, the Court of Appeal confirmed an important rule for costs in interim injunctions. In stating that normally costs should be reserved, it gave short shrift to the respondents’ submission that the authorities of Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd v Richardson [1999] Lexis Citation 21 and Picnic at Ascot v Derigs [2000] Lexis Citation 7527 no longer represent normal practice. It also rejected that the modern principle was ‘pay as you go’ in these

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll