WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP

WH Holding Ltd & Anor v E20 Stadium LLP

West Ham was not justified in seeking urgent injunctive relief as E20 had not failed to cooperate when specifically requested; the relief ultimately obtained conformed to E20's suggested approach. West Ham was justified in issuing the Part 8 claim due to E20's equivocal stance, but neither party was the successful party as the dispute was resolved by compromise incorporating both parties' positions. Costs of the injunction applications are to be paid by West Ham to E20; no order as to costs for the Part 8 claim.

Parties
Claimant: WH Holding Limited; Claimant: West Ham United Football Club Limited; Defendant: E20 Stadium LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Costs Ruling After Injunction and Part 8 Claim
Outcome
West Ham to pay E20's costs of the injunction applications; no order as to costs for the Part 8 claim; costs of the costs application to be determined.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Concession Agreement, Obligation to Cooperate, Injunctive Relief, Costs Orders
Contract Law Sports Law Civil Procedure Interpretation of Concession Agreement Obligation to Cooperate Injunctive Relief Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WH Holding Limited

Claimant

West Ham United Football Club Limited

Claimant

E20 Stadium LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Costs Ruling After Injunction and Part 8 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether West Ham was justified in seeking urgent injunctive relief against E20 for cooperation in responding to an FA charge
  2. 2 Whether E20 had a contractual obligation to cooperate under the Concession Agreement
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the injunction applications and the Part 8 claim

Ratio Decidendi

West Ham was not justified in seeking urgent injunctive relief as E20 had not failed to cooperate when specifically requested; the relief ultimately obtained conformed to E20's suggested approach. West Ham was justified in issuing the Part 8 claim due to E20's equivocal stance, but neither party was the successful party as the dispute was resolved by compromise incorporating both parties' positions. Costs of the injunction applications are to be paid by West Ham to E20; no order as to costs for the Part 8 claim.

Court Disposition

West Ham to pay E20's costs of the injunction applications; no order as to costs for the Part 8 claim; costs of the costs application to be determined.

Orders

  • West Ham to pay E20’s costs of and occasioned by the injunction applications, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • No order as to costs of the Part 8 claim.