R G Spiller Ltd v Derhalli & Anor

R G Spiller Ltd v Derhalli & Anor

The court found that, although the claimant obtained the relief sought by consent, it was not reasonable to seek the injunction without giving the defendants an opportunity to confirm they would not call on the bond, especially since the original bond had already been returned. The claimant's apprehension did not justify an ex parte application, and the conduct of both parties did not warrant a costs order in the claimant's favour. The claimant's application for costs failed, and the appropriate order was no order as to costs, with the claimant to pay the defendants' costs of the costs application.

Parties
Claimant: R G Spiller Ltd.; Defendant: Kerim Derhalli; Defendant: Jayne Derhalli
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Ruling on Costs Following Consent Order and Injunction
Outcome
Claimant's application for costs dismissed; claimant to pay defendants' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Performance Bonds, Costs Orders, Consent Orders
Civil Procedure Construction Law Injunctions Performance Bonds Costs Orders Consent 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R G Spiller Ltd.

Claimant

Kerim Derhalli

Defendant

Jayne Derhalli

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Ruling on Costs Following Consent Order and Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to costs following a consent order for an injunction restraining a call on a performance bond
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the parties justified a costs order
  3. 3 Whether the application for an injunction was reasonable without notice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the claimant obtained the relief sought by consent, it was not reasonable to seek the injunction without giving the defendants an opportunity to confirm they would not call on the bond, especially since the original bond had already been returned. The claimant's apprehension did not justify an ex parte application, and the conduct of both parties did not warrant a costs order in the claimant's favour. The claimant's application for costs failed, and the appropriate order was no order as to costs, with the claimant to pay the defendants' costs of the costs application.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for costs dismissed; claimant to pay defendants' costs of the application.

Orders

  • No order as to costs for the main proceedings.
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs of and occasioned by the application dated 1st July 2014, to be assessed on the standard basis.