Mark Reynolds & Anor v Priyesh Parekh (Re SP Commodities Limited)
[2024] EWHC 2747 (Ch)
Cancrie Investments Limited v Zulfiqur al Tanveer Haider (Costs)
9 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2302 (Comm)
High Court
A company won a court case against an individual, including getting a freezing order on the individual's assets. They argued over who should pay the legal costs. The judge decided the individual should pay most of the company's legal fees, because the individual's actions made the case more complicated and because the judge found the company was justified in their actions.
Key Facts
- •Cancrie Investments Ltd. (Claimant) brought a claim against Mr. Zulfiqur Al Tanveer Haider (Defendant).
- •Defendant made a Strike Out Application, a Summary Judgment Application, and the Claimant made a Continuation Application for a Worldwide Freezing Order.
- •The Judge dismissed the Defendant's applications and granted the Claimant's Continuation Application.
- •Disagreement arose regarding costs.
- •The Claimant sought costs for all three applications and a payment on account of £209,000.
- •The Defendant disputed the costs of the Continuation Application and the amount of the payment on account.
Legal Principles
In interim injunction applications, costs are usually reserved until final determination.
Melford Capital Partners LLP v. Wingfield Digby [2021] 1 WLR 1553 (CA) at [35], White Book (paragraph 15-53.2 of SCP 2024 vol 2)
The 'normal approach' to reserving costs applies where the grant of an injunction turns on the balance of convenience. This is not the case with freezing injunctions.
Melford Capital Partners LLP v. Wingfield Digby [2021] 1 WLR 1553 (CA)
Conflicting authorities exist regarding costs orders for freezing injunction continuation applications.
Various cases cited (Bravo, PJSC Darnitsa, Re Microcredit, Kumar, Al Assam, Harrington)
Freezing injunctions are different from interim injunctions; the balance of convenience is not a relevant factor for freezing injunctions.
Bravo v Amerisur Resources plc [2020] Costs LR 1329, Kumar v Sharma [2022] Costs LR 1029
In freezing injunction continuation applications, costs should usually follow the event, especially when the defendant's case changes significantly shortly before the hearing, or where the defendant resists continuation and is unsuccessful.
Bravo, Kumar, Harrington & Charles Trading Ltd v Mehta
Outcomes
Defendant to pay Claimant's costs for Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications.
Costs follow the event; no reason to depart from the usual order.
Defendant to pay Claimant's costs for the Continuation Application (except costs up to the first return date before Dias J, which are reserved).
Prefers the reasoning in Harrington v Mehta and similar cases, finding that the test for a freezing injunction is different from the test for a claim succeeding at trial and that the defendant's late changes to their case and resistance to the continuation are relevant factors.
Defendant to pay Claimant £209,000 on account of costs.
Considers the Claimant's costs schedules, the Defendant's late changes in case, and the complexity of the applications, finding the amount appropriate.
Similar Cases
Ana Tomic & Anor v The Residences by Damoor Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1348 (Comm)
Scenic International Group Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Richard Adenaike & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1178 (Ch)
WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)
CHIA-HSING WANG v FLOREAT PRIVATE LIMITED
[2023] EWHC 1123 (Comm)