Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Interim Applications – Procedural or Not!

In a recent decision from the island of Saint Christopher and Nevis, Master Moise had to consider an application regarding an order of the Court of Appeal by which costs were ordered in favour of the applicant against the first respondent.

The parties could not agree on how the costs should be assessed.

One of the areas of contention between the parties was whether the order was to be assessed under rule 65.11 or 65.12 of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The first respondent submitted that the costs should be assessed under rule 65.11 which caps the costs on applications which are merely procedural generally at 10% of costs in the claim itself. Rule 65.12 does not contain any such limitation on costs and the applicant sought such an order.

Master Moise held “Whilst I do have my doubts as to whether an application for an interim injunction is procedural, there is for now, a clear line of authority which establishes that it is,” citing and approving the decision of Justice Wallbank in United Company Rusal PLC et el v. Corbiere Holdings Limited et el (United Company). In that decision Justice Wallbank held that the test for the purposes of assessment of costs is whether the application decided the substantive issue in the claim. He also stated “I am not taken with the Defendants’ clever submission that discharge of the injunction determined the injunction proceedings, and should therefore be treated as not procedural … There is nothing about interim applications that necessarily direct them to be dealt with under CPR 65.12”.

This decision confirms United Company, that the test to be applied for the purposes of assessment of costs in the High Court is whether the application decides or not the substantive issue in the claim.

 

Leave A Comment