Search Mobile

collapse

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

Email address

Password

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

collapseSign

Home

Insights

Resources

Blogs

Interim costs success for Specsavers

interim costs success for Specsavers

9 May 2012

The Court of Appeal has given useful guidance on the issue of interim costs awards pending a final outcome of a large trade mark litigation matter, as part of the ongoing litigation between Specsavers v Asda.

The court felt it was appropriate (despite Asda arguing costs should be reserved pending the outcome of its application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court) that although costs had not yet been formally assessed, Specsavers be awarded their costs, subject to a substantial discount to reflect the issues upon which it had lost as the court had already made a final determination of all issues concerning liability; except those specific issues referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, for which costs must be reserved.

This pragmatic decision confirms that successful parties in a case should not have to wait unduly for their costs; however a win overall does not guarantee an award of costs for those specific issues they have been unsuccessful on.

related opinions

Court of Appeal confirms all employment tribunal judgments must be published on the register, except in national security cases

Under the ET Rules, all judgments and accompanying written reasons must be published on a pubic register which the general public can access online.

View blog

Marriott International: a look behind the ICO’s £99m fine and what this means for corporate acquisitions

Last month, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced notice of its intention to fine (NOI) Marriott International, Inc. £99m for infringements of the GDPR.

View blog

Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd

The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.

View blog