DENMARK Law and Practice Contributed by: Erik Kjær-Hansen, Josephine Alsing and Victoria Krebs Dissing, Gorrissen Federspiel
initiated by filing a request for a preliminary injunction with the relevant district court. Section 413 of the Administration of Justice Act states that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must pro - vide conclusive or at least presumptive evidence that: • the party does, in fact, hold the right sought to be protected by the preliminary injunction; • the actions of the alleged infringer require the issu - ance of a preliminary injunction; and • the party’s ability to enforce its right would be diminished if the party should await the outcome of an action on the merits. If these conditions are fulfilled, the court may grant a temporary court order unless the general rules on penalties and damages and any potential security offered by the alleged infringer provide sufficient pro - tection. The court may also refuse to grant a prelimi - nary injunction if this would cause the alleged infringer any damage or inconvenience that is disproportionate to the granting of the injunction. The party seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of proof. However, the burden of proof is dif - ferent from – and not as burdensome as ‒ the burden of proof in ordinary court proceedings. As noted previ - ously, the party is not required to provide conclusive evidence but is only required to provide presumptive evidence. There are no statutory deadlines for the court to decide on a request for interim measures. However, the proceedings generally move quite fast (and a lot faster than ordinary court proceedings), owing to stricter deadlines being set by the court. The deci - sion in the injunction proceedings may be appealed to the High Court. The court’s decision is not a final decision on the mer - its and thus it is not possible to claim damages as part of the injunction proceedings. A party must thus commence ordinary court proceedings on the merits no later than two weeks after the decision in the pre - liminary injunction case.
A party who has obtained an injunction on the basis of a right that turns out not to exist must pay the other party compensation for loss and damages. 10.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution In Denmark, parties are generally encouraged to seek a resolution when involved in a court case. When a lawsuit is initiated, the parties are actively encouraged by the court to consider potential settle - ment options, including engaging in mediation facili - tated by a court-appointed mediator. However, ADR is voluntary in the Danish legal sys - tem. Thus, if a party declines an invitation to enter into settlement discussions and/or declines mediation facilitated by a court-appointed mediator, this does not give rise to any sanctions. Under Danish law, third-party funding is permitted – although there are no specific regulatory or legal provi - sions that cover it. Therefore, all lawsuits are eligible for third-party funding, including lawsuits regarding competition law infringements. There is no minimum threshold for the claim to be financed through third-party funding. However, in practice, litigation funding involves considerable effort for both the claimant and the investor. Therefore, the claim is often of a substantial size to ensure a reason - able return for both parties. Historically, third-party funding has not been widely used in Denmark. In recent years, third-party funding has gained more attention, and Denmark has seen its first third-party funding cases. 11.2 Costs Litigation in Denmark involves different expenses, including expenses such as attorney’s fees, court fees, and expenses for expert opinions. According to Section 312 of the Administration of Jus - tice Act, the winning party is entitled to recover the 11. Funding and Costs 11.1 Litigation Funding
79 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook