Injunction Costs

[euroDilbert]

Can anyone tell me if you will normally be awarded your costs if successful in getting an injunction.

The particular situation is an (apparently) straightforward case of regular trespassing on private property.

Thanks, eD.

 

[Vanilla]

Really depends on the circumstances. Remember even where you are successful in having your costs awarded against the other party, collecting those costs can be difficult.

 

[Ravima]

there is nothing certain in law, except expense. Believe me, legal expenses are huge, not high, not expensive, but HUGE.

In theory you might be awarded costs, but as Vanilla says, there is a huge difference between being awarded costs and collecting them. if the other party either does nto or cannot pay the costs, then you must pay them as it was you instructed the solicitor.

 

[euroDilbert]

Ok - thanks for that. Will bear it in mind.

eD

 

[mmclo]

You should be able to move an injunction yourslef, just read up on it in your local library, as a citizen you have access to the courts, this will save you the main cost i.e. lawyers

Of course the other party might look for costs so you need to think about this, however an injunction is merely a tool to suspend events while a judgment is been made so as to stop somebody citing events on the gorund in their favour.

The only other pitfall is if you unduly or recklessly take out an injunction which restricts somebodys ability to make a living etc. then they might counter sue

In summary if you have an objectively (i.e not just in your own mind) strong case don't let the lawyers or jargon put you off

NB This should not be construed as legal advice

 

[mf1]

"In summary if you have an objectively (i.e not just in your own mind) strong case don't let the lawyers or jargon put you off"

How do you know if your case is a strong case without the expertise of someone who knows? I spend far too much of my time telling my more difficult clients that (a) no, they have no grounds to sue (b) they won't succeed (c) they will quite rightly get hung out to dry for costs. And then taking an earful about (d) the law is an ass (e) there is no justice in the world............

No one should ever go into litigation lightly. Too many people do.

mf

 

[mmclo]

I'd distinguish between suing and an injunction, the impression I got from the original post was there was some form of tresspass which they wanted to stop. In a situation like this I don't see the need for a solicitor etc. Thats not to say that a solicitor will often be of assistance just that people should not feel its essential. One could often know of a person with expereince and knowledge of a variety of areas in life who could give objective advice, there might event be a website where people would do this?? )

"In summary if you have an objectively (i.e not just in your own mind) strong case don't let the lawyers or jargon put you off"

How do you know if your case is a strong case without the expertise of someone who knows? I spend far too much of my time telling my more difficult clients that (a) no, they have no grounds to sue (b) they won't succeed (c) they will quite rightly get hung out to dry for costs. And then taking an earful about (d) the law is an ass (e) there is no justice in the world............

No one should ever go into litigation lightly. Too many people do.

mf

 

[Vanilla]

With respect while some solicitors, including myself, do post here from time to time, we give very general advice on very vague posts. The potential cost implication of pursuing an injunction should certainly warrant an hours ( or more where necessary) consultation with a solicitor to get some specialised advice on all the facts.