Summary

The judge had correctly exercised his discretion when making an order that the appellant should pay 75 per cent of the respondent's costs following an application for an injunction.

Facts

The appellant company (F) appealed against a decision ((2007) EWHC 828 (Ch)) that it pay the respondent company (T) 75 per cent of their costs. T's application for an injunction to prevent interference with right to light by F had been refused, although damages in lieu of an injunction were awarded. At the costs hearing the judge held that T was entitled to 75 per cent of its costs as, whilst it had failed to obtain an injunction, it had been awarded damages and because F had failed to accept a CPR Pt 36 offer. F contended that the judge had erred in his assessment of costs as he had treated the case as one of commercial litigation despite the fact that it was an application for an injunction. F contended that in light of its partial success there should have been no order for costs or an order that it pay no more than 25 per cent of T's costs.

Held

The judge had not misdirected himself in applying the principles of commercial litigation. Looking at the case as a whole the judge could have made a wide range of orders and whilst the situation might be different in other cases involving an injunction the judge had not misdirected himself in the instant case, AL Barnes Ltd v Time Talk (UK) Ltd (2003) EWCA Civ 402, (2003) BLR 331 considered. The judge had had proper regard to all the relevant matters, had correctly balanced those matters and had reached the correct decision in the exercise of his discretion.

Appeal dismissed