Judgment: 2015-06-17 · Court archive

Music companies awarded 60% of costs in UPC injunction case

The High Court ruled on costs after granting an injunction against UPC Communications Ireland, ordering the music companies to recover 60% of their costs up to the first judgment. Each side must bear its own costs incurred afterward.

High Court, Commercial · [2015] IEHC 388

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (IRELAND) LIMITED
  • UNIVERSAL MUSIC IRELAND LIMITED
  • WARNER MUSIC IRELAND LIMITED (Plaintiff)
What

The High Court ruled on costs after granting an injunction against UPC Communications Ireland, ordering the music companies to recover 60% of their costs up to the first judgment. Each side must bear its own costs incurred afterward.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The companies argued that they should recover all their costs because they had succeeded on the main issue: whether an injunction should be granted. UPC asked the court to depart from the usual approach that costs follow the event. It pointed to the novelty of the application, its engagement with proposals about the injunction’s terms, and issues on which the companies’ proposed terms were not included in the eventual order.

The High Court has ordered UPC Communications Ireland Limited to pay 60% of the costs incurred by three music companies up to the first judgment in proceedings that resulted in an injunction against the internet provider. Each side must bear its own costs incurred after that judgment.

Mr Justice Cregan delivered the costs ruling on 17 June 2015 in proceedings brought by Sony Music Entertainment (Ireland) Limited, Universal Music Ireland Limited and Warner Music Ireland Limited. It was the third judgment in the case. The court had already decided to grant an injunction against UPC and had subsequently ruled on aspects of the order’s form.

The companies argued that they should recover all their costs because they had succeeded on the main issue: whether an injunction should be granted. UPC asked the court to depart from the usual approach that costs follow the event. It pointed to the novelty of the application, its engagement with proposals about the injunction’s terms, and issues on which the companies’ proposed terms were not included in the eventual order.

The judge treated the injunction as the main event, on which the companies had succeeded. But he also found that the terms of the order had been contested and that UPC had successfully resisted some elements sought by the companies. He described UPC’s approach to those terms as responsible and appropriate. The application’s novelty and complexity also weighed in the costs assessment.

Applying those considerations, the judge ordered UPC to pay 60% of the companies’ costs up to the first judgment, rather than all of them.

The parties also disputed costs incurred after that judgment, when they made further submissions and the court considered five or six issues about the form of the order. The judge said the parties had been successful on an even basis across those issues. He ordered each side to bear its own costs for that later period.

The ruling concerns costs only. It does not alter the earlier decision to grant an injunction or specify its terms.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review