Andrew Hicks Engineering Ltd v Jenk Associates Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2031 (Ch) (04 August 2023)

Andrew Hicks Engineering Ltd v Jenk Associates Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2031 (Ch) (04 August 2023)

The court held that, as the substantive issues were compromised without trial and there was no clear determination of success, and as the undertakings were given without admission and the facts remained disputed, it was not appropriate to make an order for costs of the interim injunction application. The proper order was no order as to costs, following established authority that costs should be reserved or not ordered where the answer is not obvious and facts are unresolved.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2031 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Hicks Engineering Limited; First Defendant: Jenk Associates Limited; Second Defendant: Kingsley Plastics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts) / Costs Determination Following Settlement and Discontinuance
Outcome
No order as to costs for the interim injunction application; claim discontinued by notice; no further order as to costs except as previously provided.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Interim Injunctions, Settlement Agreements, Abuse of Process, Easements and Rights of Way
Property Law Civil Procedure Costs Orders Interim Injunctions Settlement Agreements Abuse of Process Easements and Rights of Way

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Hicks Engineering Limited

Claimant

Jenk Associates Limited

First Defendant

Kingsley Plastics Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts) / Costs Determination Following Settlement and Discontinuance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs of the interim injunction application after settlement and discontinuance of the claim
  2. 2 Whether the second claim was an abuse of process due to prior settlement of the same issues
  3. 3 Whether the defendants should have offered undertakings earlier to avoid costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, as the substantive issues were compromised without trial and there was no clear determination of success, and as the undertakings were given without admission and the facts remained disputed, it was not appropriate to make an order for costs of the interim injunction application. The proper order was no order as to costs, following established authority that costs should be reserved or not ordered where the answer is not obvious and facts are unresolved.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs for the interim injunction application; claim discontinued by notice; no further order as to costs except as previously provided.

Orders

  • Claimant to serve notice of discontinuance under CPR 38.3.
  • Court orders under CPR 38.6(1) that the claimant is not liable for the defendants' costs of the claim, subject to other points discussed.