Background
QuidPay sued OpenPayd after OpenPayd suspended QuidPay’s account and retained funds in a reserve account. QuidPay initially sought expedited relief requiring the suspension to be removed and the funds released. Its original case included allegations that customers beneficially owned the funds and that OpenPayd’s conduct was unlawful and tantamount to deceit, but QuidPay later abandoned the beneficial-ownership argument and narrowed its case.
Instead of deciding the interim injunction application, the court directed preliminary issues. In the main judgment, [2026] EWHC 1991 (Ch), QuidPay prevailed on the remaining issue: OpenPayd’s contractual right to retain the reserve did not survive termination. OpenPayd subsequently paid QuidPay €2,453,717.89 and £7 million on 7 August 2026 and chose not to seek permission to appeal. This judgment addressed the reserved costs and interest consequences.
The Court’s Holding
The court treated QuidPay as the effective winner of the injunction application because the preliminary-issue ruling achieved substantially the same result—the release of the reserve funds—even though the requested account suspension was not lifted. But QuidPay’s initial beneficial-ownership case was unsustainable, its accusations and regulatory threats were illegitimate, and its late abandonment of other arguments caused unnecessary expense. The court therefore awarded QuidPay 65% of its injunction-application costs, subject to standard assessment, with £113,381.78 payable on account.
OpenPayd was entitled to the costs of the parties’ preliminary-issue applications, but its claimed hourly rates—about 235% of the guideline rates—were excessive as between opposing parties. The court ordered a £7,000 payment on account. For the preliminary-issue trial itself, the parties agreed that OpenPayd would pay QuidPay’s costs on the standard basis, with £110,731.70 payable on account.
The court also held that QuidPay was entitled to compensatory interest because the reserve funds should have been returned when the agreements terminated on 27 May 2026 but were not paid until 7 August 2026. Finding insufficient evidence to support QuidPay’s requested 5.75% rate, the court awarded interest at 1% above base rate, or 4.75%, producing £58,301.37 and €20,436.44, subject to the parties checking the calculations.
Key Takeaways
- A party that obtains substantially the same practical result through a preliminary issue may be treated as the winner of an unresolved interim application.
- Costs recovery may be reduced materially when a party advances an unsustainable case, makes illegitimate accusations, or abandons arguments only after causing its opponent unnecessary expense.
- Pre-judgment interest compensates a claimant for being kept out of money; without evidence supporting a higher commercial borrowing rate, the court may select a rate modestly above base rate.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates the court’s flexible, issue-sensitive approach to consequential costs. Overall success did not shield QuidPay from a substantial reduction for the way it initially framed and pursued its case, while OpenPayd’s success on a discrete costs issue did not justify passing unusually high solicitor rates to its opponent.
For payment-services disputes, the judgment also confirms that money wrongfully retained after contractual entitlement ends can attract compensatory interest from the date it should have been released, even where the recipient likely would have passed the money to its own customers.