Photobooth Props Limited & Anor. v Nepbh Limited & Ors.

Decision date: 27 June 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 1634 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 IPEC judgment concerned whether costs of three interim applications (claimants' summary judgment and defendants' strike out and security for costs) and related CMC costs should be summarily assessed and payable immediately or reserved to trial. The court held that CPR 63.26(1) creates a strong presumption that costs of interim applications in IPEC proceedings are reserved to the conclusion of the trial, displacing the usual PD44 "pay as you go" presumption, and refused the claimants' requests for immediate summary assessment, disapplication of IPEC caps, or uplift for unreasonable conduct. The CMC costs were ordered to be costs in the case.

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

The ratio is that in IPEC proceedings CPR 63.26(1) ordinarily requires reservation of costs of interim applications to the end of the trial (or relevant phase), displacing PD44.9.2(b), and that summary assessment of costs within IPEC stage caps is generally better undertaken at the end of the relevant phase unless exceptional circumstances or conduct amounting to unreasonable behaviour under r.63.26(2) are shown.

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 judgment commented that interim successful costs awards, even if below a stage cap, can risk overcompensation when assessed without regard to the whole phase; and that "unreasonable conduct" for r.63.26(2) concerns conduct in relation to court processes and will not be made out by ordinary adversarial litigation between SMEs.