Photobooth Props Limited & Anor. v NEPBH Ltd & Ors.
Decision date: 25 April 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] EWHC 755 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This was an application by the Claimants for an "unless" order striking out the Defendants' defences for failure to pay an interim costs order made at a February 2023 CMC. Deputy Judge Treacy refused the application, finding the IPEC context, Article 6 considerations, the possibility of alternative enforcement and the unclear nature of the Defendants' attempts to seek instalments weighed against imposing a debarring sanction. The interim costs order remains enforceable by ordinary means but the strike-out sanction was not imposed on these facts.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where an interim costs order has been made in IPEC proceedings, the court should not automatically impose a debarring "unless" order for non-payment; the decision requires consideration of the exceptional IPEC context, Article 6(1) implications, availability of alternative enforcement mechanisms, and whether the defendant has provided proper, cogent evidence of impecuniosity before depriving them of the ability to defend.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judge indicated that defendants asserting inability to pay should provide detailed, full and frank financial evidence; absent such evidence, payment may generally be required to continue defending. The judgment also suggested that premature or procedurally incorrect use of form N245 by unrepresented litigants may reflect misunderstanding rather than deliberate evasion and should not be taken as abuse.