Osuji v Holmes & Ors

Permission to discontinue was not required because the interim injunction was granted by the High Court, not the County Court; the claims were not the same, and CPR 38.2(2) did not apply.

Parties: Appellant: Osuji; Respondents: Holmes and Others
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 March 2011
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Second Appeal, Court of Appeal
Outcome: appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Discontinuance, Interim Injunctions, Costs, Construction of CPR 38.2

Civil Procedure Discontinuance Interim Injunctions Costs Construction of CPR 38.2

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Osuji

Appellant

Holmes and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal, Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether permission of the court was required to discontinue a county court claim where an interim injunction had been granted by the High Court
2 Proper construction of 'court' in CPR 38.2(2)(i)

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to discontinue was not required because the interim injunction was granted by the High Court, not the County Court; the claims were not the same, and CPR 38.2(2) did not apply.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

permission to appeal refused
appeal dismissed