Following the refusal of an interlocutory injunction sought by the landlord applicants to compel a hotel operator to continue operating a hotel under a particular brand, the court determined the issue of costs.
The applicants argued that an indemnity clause in a lease entitled them to full indemnity costs from a former tenant alleged to have breached the lease.
The court held that the indemnity clause did not permit the landlord to recover litigation costs from a prior tenant where the present tenant supported the motion and where the lease’s procedures regarding a change of operating name had not been followed.
Even if the clause applied, the court would decline to exercise its discretion to award costs to the applicants.
Costs were awarded instead to the successful respondent hotel operator.
