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Desquenne et Giral UK Ltd v Richardson [1999] Lexis Citation 21 and Picnic at Ascot v Derigs [2000] Lexis Citation 7527 no longer represent normal practice.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
