Glaxo Group Ltd & anor -v- Rowex Ltd [2015] IEHC 467 (16 July 2015)

Glaxo Group Ltd & anor -v- Rowex Ltd [2015] IEHC 467 (16 July 2015)

The court reserved costs of the interlocutory injunction application, finding it was not possible justly to adjudicate upon liability for costs at this stage due to the risk of injustice if the outcome at trial differs, and because new evidence or discovery may alter the merits; costs relating to the Article 104 dimension were not awarded as the issue was raised by the court and not by the parties.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 467
Parties
Plaintiff: Glaxo Group Limited; Plaintiff: GlaxoSmithKline (Ireland) Limited t/a Allen & Hanburys; Defendant: Rowex Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Intellectual Property Dispute / Post Interlocutory Injunction Application, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs reserved; no order as to costs at this stage for interlocutory injunction application; no order as to costs for Article 104 proceedings.
Legal Topics
Costs of Interlocutory Applications, Interlocutory Injunctions, Discretion in Awarding Costs
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Costs of Interlocutory Applications Interlocutory Injunctions Discretion in Awarding Costs

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glaxo Group Limited

Plaintiff

GlaxoSmithKline (Ireland) Limited t/a Allen & Hanburys

Plaintiff

Rowex Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Intellectual Property Dispute / Post Interlocutory Injunction Application, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to Rowex for Glaxo's failed interlocutory injunction application
  2. 2 Appropriate timing and basis for costs determination in interlocutory injunction matters

Ratio Decidendi

The court reserved costs of the interlocutory injunction application, finding it was not possible justly to adjudicate upon liability for costs at this stage due to the risk of injustice if the outcome at trial differs, and because new evidence or discovery may alter the merits; costs relating to the Article 104 dimension were not awarded as the issue was raised by the court and not by the parties.

Court Disposition

Costs reserved; no order as to costs at this stage for interlocutory injunction application; no order as to costs for Article 104 proceedings.

Orders

  • Costs of interlocutory injunction application reserved to trial judge.
  • No order as to costs for Article 104 dimension of proceedings.