The High Court has ruled that the costs of two competing injunction applications in a commercial dispute between Piramal Critical Care B.V. and Brepco Biopharma Limited should depend on how each underlying termination issue is decided at trial.
The costs ruling follows a substantive judgment delivered on 14 July 2026. In that decision, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts refused Piramal an injunction concerning a March termination notice and discharged interim relief relating to it. She granted Piramal an injunction concerning a separate April termination notice in Germany, the UK and Italy.
The March notice sought to terminate contractual arrangements because of an alleged failure to launch a product within required time limits. The April notice sought termination across all countries on the basis of Brepco’s alleged insolvency.
The judge initially indicated that there should be no order as to costs because each party had succeeded on one part of the interlocutory dispute and failed on another.
Piramal supported that approach. Brepco argued instead that all interlocutory costs should be costs in the cause, meaning their recovery would depend on the eventual outcome of the overall proceedings.
Ms Justice Roberts held that neither approach fully addressed the structure of the dispute. The two termination grounds are separate and may produce different outcomes at trial. One party could succeed on the failure-to-launch issue while losing on insolvency.
The court also noted that both injunction applications had been pleaded, evidenced and heard together, making it impractical to divide their costs now.
The judge therefore adopted a more specific approach. Costs relating to the March injunction will follow the trial determination of whether that termination was valid. Costs relating to the April injunction will separately follow the trial determination of the insolvency-based termination.
The court granted liberty to apply if further issues arise.