Misuse of confidential information

Barristers at 4 Pump Court frequently assist clients with securing interim injunctions, to protect clients’ confidential information and intellectual property pending trial.

The usual approach with respect to the costs of interim applications is that such costs are reserved pending resolution of the substantive dispute. In a recent case, Education International Services Limited and another v John Vahya Janoudi [2021] EWHC 888 (Comm), in which 4 Pump Court’s Quentin Tannock appeared for the Applicants, Mrs Justice Cockerill awarded the Applicants 75% of their costs of their interim injunction application, subject to detailed assessment.  The Judge applied Picnic at Ascot v Kalus Derigs [2000] 2 WLUK 320, asking the questions which come from Picnic and concluding that it would not be unfair for the Applicants to have their costs of the application, even if the Respondent’s explanation for his conduct was found to be a good one at trial. The case serves as a useful reminder that a ‘costs reserved’ order is not a foregone conclusion at the interim stage.