Jeeg Global Ltd v Hare

Jeeg Global Ltd v Hare

The court accepted the defendant's permanent undertaking, stayed the action, and made no order as to costs of the action except that the defendant must pay the claimant's costs of the application to strike out. The claimant was not entitled to recover the costs of the without notice application, and it was disproportionate to hold a trial solely to determine costs. The court could not find the defendant to be the unsuccessful party as no findings adverse to him were made.

Parties
Claimant: Jeeg Global Limited; Defendant: John Hare
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Ruling Following Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Action stayed. No order as to costs of the action except for costs of the strike out application.
Legal Topics
Costs, Injunctions, Case Management, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Case Management Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeeg Global Limited

Claimant

John Hare

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Ruling Following Application to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to recover costs of the action after the defendant's application to strike out was refused
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should recover costs incurred by a without notice application for an injunction
  3. 3 Whether the court should stay the action and make no order as to costs except for the costs of the strike out application

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the defendant's permanent undertaking, stayed the action, and made no order as to costs of the action except that the defendant must pay the claimant's costs of the application to strike out. The claimant was not entitled to recover the costs of the without notice application, and it was disproportionate to hold a trial solely to determine costs. The court could not find the defendant to be the unsuccessful party as no findings adverse to him were made.

Court Disposition

Action stayed. No order as to costs of the action except for costs of the strike out application.

Orders

  • Permanent undertaking by the defendant accepted in the terms of the interim undertaking embodied in the Order of 7 July 2011.
  • Action stayed.