All Costs Reserved To Trial Judge After 'Plainly Necessary' Mixed-Outcome Hearing

Where an applicant fails on an interim injunction but succeeds partially on enforcement, and the hearing was necessary to address deadlock, the court may reserve all costs to the trial judge rather than make an immediate order reflecting the mixed outcome.

Chancery Division reserves costs to trial judge following mixed outcome on interim injunction and enforcement applications

LATTER RAIN OUTPOURING PROJECT LTD V GREEN & ORS [2026] EWHC 1381 (CH)

In Latter Rain Outpouring Project Ltd v Green & Ors [2026] EWHC 1381 (Ch), Adam Kramer KC sitting as a High Court judge addressed costs following a mixed outcome on an interim injunction application and enforcement application in a dispute over control of a company owning a £3 million property. The Applicant failed entirely on its injunction application (save for continuation of existing undertakings) but achieved partial success on enforcement, securing orders for provision of bank statements, cheque stubs, and loan disbursement documentation. Costs from the earlier Mann J hearing had been reserved to the return date judge, and no costs order had been made at the February 2026 hearing before Mark Anderson KC. Kramer KC declined to make any immediate costs order, reasoning that the outcome was mixed, the hearing had been plainly necessary given the deadlock in the Company and urgency surrounding the property, and that an immediate order would be premature. All outstanding costs, including those reserved by Mann J, were reserved to the preliminary issue trial judge or any future judge hearing the matter. The decision illustrates the court’s willingness to defer costs decisions in company control disputes where fundamental questions of authority and membership remain unresolved, particularly where the hearing served a necessary case management function despite the applicant’s limited success on the relief sought.
Link to full judgment

[72] The Applicant failed on the Application, save to secure the continuation of the undertakings previously provided, but succeeded on some of its enforcement application. Moreover, a hearing was plainly necessary, given the deadlock in the Company and that an expensive Property and potential development are in issue with some urgency. The costs of the hearing before Mann J were reserved on 30 January 2025 to "the judge hearing the application on the return date". The only costs order made at the hearing of Mark Anderson KC on 6 February 2026 was "No order as to the costs of this hearing". I am minded to reserve the costs of this hearing, and any costs that were reserved by Mann J that remain outstanding, to the preliminary issue trial judge or further order of any other judge hearing this matter in the future.

Citations

Dasji v Bhudia [2026] EWHC 455 (Ch) An example concerned the head priest’s automatic ex officio position on a board, pertinent to ex officio directorship discussions in the judgment. Lenovo Group Ltd v Interdigital Technology Corp [2024] EWHC 596 (Ch) Explored conditions under which interim declarations might not be appropriate, particularly where declarations are determinative of final issues.
X-twitter Youtube Linkedin

Key Points

  • Where the outcome of a hearing is mixed, with the applicant failing on its primary relief but succeeding in part on a subsidiary application, a court may properly decline to make an immediate costs order in favour of either party and instead reserve all outstanding costs to a future judge, particularly where the hearing was plainly necessary given the nature and urgency of the underlying dispute. [72]
  • Costs reserved at an earlier hearing to “the judge hearing the application on the return date” do not automatically fall to be determined at every subsequent hearing in the same proceedings; where the identity of the true return date is itself uncertain, a later judge may reserve those costs further to the judge who ultimately determines the substantive issues. [72]
  • Where an application and underlying claim may not have been properly authorised by the entity in whose name they are brought, the court may warn those who have procured the proceedings that a costs order against them personally, rather than against the nominal claimant, may be appropriate if the want of authority is ultimately established; solicitors who have confirmed proper instructions in such circumstances may also be exposed to a costs order. [18]
  • The failure of a claimant to prosecute its underlying claim with urgency, including a failure to issue, seal or serve proceedings for a prolonged period after obtaining interim relief, is a relevant factor weighing against the grant of further or continued interim relief and may inform the exercise of the costs discretion at subsequent hearings. [13, 50]

[53] "Of course, having read my judgment and heard what I said at the hearing, it may be open to the Applicant (or those purporting to direct the Applicant) not to pursue this matter… The undertakings would likely be discharged, and the preliminary issue halted. There would be cost consequences, and I or another judge would consider those, but it would not be automatically the case that the Applicant would have to pay all costs expended to date."

Key Findings In The Case

  • The judge reserved the costs of the hearing, including those reserved by Mann J, to a future judge or further order, acknowledging the mixed outcome of the hearing where the Applicant both failed and succeeded in part [72].
  • The court highlighted the uncertainty in identifying the true return date, justifying the reservation of costs to the preliminary issue trial judge or another judge in the future [72].
  • The court warned that those who procured the proceedings might face personal costs orders if it is ultimately found that the Application and underlying claim were not properly authorised, potentially extending such orders to involved solicitors [18].
  • The failure of the Applicant to prosecute its underlying claim with urgency, having not issued, sealed, or served proceedings for eight months, was noted as a factor weighing against further interim relief and influencing future costs decisions [13, 50].
  • The hearing was deemed necessary due to the nature and urgency of the dispute, which contributed to the decision to reserve costs rather than make an immediate order for either party [72].

[18] "If it ultimately turns out that the application and claim are not properly authorised, and I do not prejudge that question, they may be a nullity. This could possibly, and I stress this is only a possibility and express no view whatsoever, be a case where a costs order against the Hoxton complainants who have brought the application (in the Company's name), or even the solicitors who confirmed that they were properly instructed, is appropriate. Those behind the application and claim must be aware of this."

The High Court’s decision in Latter Rain Outpouring Project Ltd v Green & ors [2026] EWHC 1381 (Ch) concerned the costs of a further interim injunction hearing and associated enforcement application arising from a dispute over control of a company limited by guarantee.

Background

Latter Rain Outpouring Project Limited (formerly The Latter-Rain Outpouring Revival Ministries) is a company limited by guarantee, registered under company number 06011619. The Company owns a property at 234-242A Hoxton Street in London, which is used for church purposes and is also let as a flat and four commercial units, with a value said to exceed £3 million. The Company’s stated object in its articles is the provision of property for accommodation and business activities in the community, and it conducts the commercial activities of a church.

The underlying dispute concerns control of the Company, its property, and the church to which it relates. There has been, as one counsel described it, a “schism” within the church, broadly with the Hoxton congregation led by Leroy Vassell, Lorna Vassell and Nathaniel Turner opposing the First Respondent’s conduct, and the Peckham congregation supporting him. The three Respondents, Creswell Lindsay Green, Grace Anderson and Darren Patten, are listed as directors of the Company at Companies House, with the Second and Third Respondents recorded as having been appointed in November 2024. The First Respondent, Mr Green, is a bishop of the Afro-Caribbean Churches Pentecostal ministry and holds his directorship ex officio under the Company’s articles.

A draft Part 7 Claim dated 18 September 2025 was prepared but never issued, sealed or served. It asserted that the Respondents were removed as directors by an extraordinary general meeting held on 11 July 2025, and that they had wrongfully diverted Company funds and granted charges over the Property in favour of a lender, Charles Street Commercial Investments Limited. The relief sought included declarations, rectification of the Companies House register, injunctions restraining the Respondents from acting on the Company’s behalf, and a declaration that the Charles Street charges were invalid. Despite the application having been issued in September 2025, the underlying claim remained in draft form at the time of the hearing in May 2026, some eight months later.

The application was first heard on 30 September 2025 before Mann J (the judgment at paragraph 9 states this date, though paragraphs 64 and 72 appear to contain a typographical error referring to “30 January 2025”), who granted a limited interim injunction until 24 October 2025 upon various undertakings being given by the Respondents. That interim position was extended by a consent order of Trower J on 24 October 2025, and further extended by consent order of Richards J on 30 October 2025, upon the parties agreeing to mediate. The matter came before Mark Anderson KC sitting as a High Court judge on 6 February 2026, who gave directions for mediation and for a further hearing, including provision for additional evidence. The case did not settle, and the matter came before Adam Kramer KC sitting as a High Court judge on 19 May 2026.

At the May 2026 hearing, the court was also asked to consider an enforcement application dated 20 February 2026, which sought unless orders requiring Mr Green to provide documents relating to the Charles Street loan advance, cheque stubs, bank statements, and documents relating to payments to a Mr Livingston. A wasted costs application had also been issued on 30 January 2026 by the Applicant against the Respondents and, it appeared, against the Respondents’ former solicitors Naylor LLP, seeking the wasted costs of a failed mediation. The court was informed at the hearing that this application was not being pursued, and the Applicant was directed to notify Naylor LLP accordingly, as correspondence indicated they were unaware of that position.

Until February 2026, the Applicant had been represented by Brown and Co solicitors, and thereafter appeared through Mr Horaine Henry of counsel by direct access. The Respondents had been represented by Naylor solicitors until January 2026, and thereafter appeared through Mr Duncan Kynoch of counsel by direct access.

Costs Issues Before the Court

The costs issues arising from this hearing were relatively contained, though they arose in a procedurally layered context. The hearing on 19 May 2026 was a further hearing of the interim injunction application, combined with the enforcement application of 20 February 2026. The Applicant failed on the injunction application, save that the undertakings previously provided by the Respondents were continued. The Applicant achieved partial success on the enforcement application, securing orders for the provision of certain categories of documents and a witness statement from Mr Green.

The costs of the hearing before Mann J on 30 September 2025 had been reserved to “the judge hearing the application on the return date”. At the hearing before Mark Anderson KC on 6 February 2026, no order as to costs of that hearing was made. The question therefore arose as to what costs order should be made in respect of the May 2026 hearing, and what should happen to the reserved costs from the Mann J hearing.

The court was required to consider the appropriate costs order in circumstances where the outcome of the hearing was mixed: the Applicant had failed on the primary relief sought but had succeeded in part on the enforcement application, and the hearing itself had been necessary given the deadlock in the Company and the urgency surrounding the Property and its potential development.

The Applicant had failed on the injunction application in its entirety, save for the continuation of the Respondents’ existing undertakings. It had achieved partial success on the enforcement application, securing orders for the provision of bank statements, cheque stubs, documentation relating to the disbursement of the Charles Street loan proceeds, and a witness statement from Mr Green explaining the payments. The Respondents had resisted the unless orders sought and had succeeded in that resistance, though they did not dispute that certain categories of documents remained outstanding and should be provided.

The court noted that the hearing had been plainly necessary, given the deadlock in the Company and the significance of the Property and the potential development. This was a relevant consideration in the exercise of the costs discretion, pointing away from a straightforward costs order against the Applicant notwithstanding its failure on the primary application.

The Court’s Decision

The court indicated that it was minded to reserve all outstanding costs, including those reserved by Mann J, to the preliminary issue trial judge or to any other judge hearing the matter in the future. The court did not make a final costs order at this stage.

The court’s provisional approach reflected the mixed outcome of the hearing and the ongoing nature of the proceedings. The Applicant had failed on the injunction application but had succeeded in part on the enforcement application. The court observed that a hearing had been plainly necessary in the circumstances, given the deadlock in the Company and the urgency of the issues surrounding the Property. These factors militated against making an immediate costs order against the Applicant simply by reason of its failure on the primary relief.

The court also noted, in the context of its wider observations on the proceedings, that if the Applicant chose not to pursue the matter following the judgment, it would not automatically follow that the Applicant would be required to pay all costs expended to date. The court expressed the view that the questions as to who controls the Company did and do need to be resolved, whatever the answer turns out to be, which was a further factor informing the reserved costs approach.

The court also raised, without deciding, the possibility that if it ultimately transpired that the application and claim were not properly authorised by the Company, a costs order against the individuals who had brought the application in the Company’s name, or potentially against the solicitors who had confirmed proper instructions, might be appropriate. This observation was made expressly as a possibility only, with no view expressed on the point, and was directed at ensuring that those behind the application were aware of the potential costs consequences of proceeding without proper authority.

The wasted costs application against the Respondents and Naylor LLP was noted as not being pursued. The court directed the Applicant to notify Naylor LLP that the application was not being pursued, given that correspondence from that firm indicated they had not been informed of that position.

▶ Watch the case summary

CPR 44.10 | The Sound of Silence | When A Court Order Is Silent As To Costs

CPR 44.2 And The Courts’ Discretion As To Costs

Who Was The Successful Party? | Costs Order Following Mixed Appeal Outcome

Some You Win Some You Lose | Partial Success And The Courts’ Approach To Costs

Issues Based And Proportional Costs Orders: When Should They Be Made?

CPR 36.17(5) | Costs Following Trial On Liability And The Effect Of An Extant Part 36 Offer

 

TMC Legal provides advocacy at detailed assessment for solicitors across England and Wales.

Specialist costs services across the UK

TMC Legal provides expert costs drafting, negotiaton and costs budgeting services together with representation in detailed assessment hearings. Our experienced costs lawyers and law costs draftsmen act nationwide. Contact us today.

LATTER RAIN OUTPOURING PROJECT LTD V GREEN & ORS [2026] EWHC 1381 (CH) | ADAM KRAMER KC | AMERICAN CYANAMID TEST | INDEMNITY BASIS | CPR PART 7 | SPECIAL RESOLUTION | ORDINARY RESOLUTION | SECTION 303 COMPANIES ACT 2006 | SECTION 305 COMPANIES ACT 2006 | SECTION 168 COMPANIES ACT 2006 | SECTION 312 COMPANIES ACT 2006 | SECTION 1096 COMPANIES ACT 2006 | SECTION 306 COMPANIES ACT 2006 | SCHOFIELD V JONES [2019] EWHC 803 (CH) | UNION MUSIC LTD V WATSON [2003] EWCA CIV 180 | DASJI V BHUDIA [2026] EWHC 455 (CH) | LENOVO GROUP LTD V INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORP [2024] EWHC 596 (CH) | BAINBRIDGE V SMITH (1889) 41 CH D 462 | PUZITSKAYA V ST PAUL’S MEWS (ISLINGTON) LTD [2017] EWHC 905 (CH) | EL SOMBRERO LTD [1958] CH 900 | CHARLES STREET COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS LTD | CRESWELL LINDSAY GREEN | GRACE ANDERSON | DARREN PATTEN | HOXTON ST PROPERTY | MEMBERSHIP DISPUTE | DIRECTORSHIP DISPUTE | PARAGRAPH 53 MANN ORDER | BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY | ULTRA VIRES | TABERNACLE CONSTRUCTION LTD | WASTED COSTS APPLICATION | UNLESS ORDER | STRIKE OUT | INTERIM DECLARATION | PROPORTIONATE MINIMUM | JUSTICE RICHARDS | MARK ANDERSON KC | JUDGE TROWER | JUDGE KYNOC