Court highlights importance of clarity in orders and limits on court's authority in Wintermute Trading v Terraform Labs: A guide on legal principles and procedures.

Citation: [2024] EWHC 141 (KB)
Judgment on


In the substantive case of Wintermute Trading Limited v Terraform Labs Pte Limited, the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division was tasked with resolving a disagreement surrounding compliance with a court order issued under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975. The case illuminates essential legal principles relating to the enforcement of court orders, particularly when clarity and specificity of instructions are lacking.

Key Facts

Wintermute Trading Limited (the respondent), required to produce documents pursuant to the Senior Master’s order, allegedly failed to fully comply according to Terraform Labs Pte Limited (the applicant). When the first order lacked a penal notice, the applicant sought an expedited second order, without a hearing, to compel compliance and introduced a penal notice, demanding action in an undefined manner. This led to debates over whether such an approach was proper, given the existence of a dispute regarding compliance.

Key legal principles discussed in the judgment encompass:

  1. The requirements of CPR 23.8(1), which permits the court to process applications without a hearing under prescribed conditions. This principle was significant in determining whether the Senior Master’s decision to issue the second order without a hearing was appropriate.

  2. The application of CPR 23.8(3), crucial for cases where orders are made without hearings. A provision had been overlooked that would allow the party affected by a court’s order to seek its variation or setting aside within a specified time frame.

  3. A consideration of principles from Gee on Commercial Injunctions, addressing the necessity for orders to be clear and unambiguous, so that parties are aware of their obligations - a principle that weighed significantly on the decision to set aside the second order.

  4. The Chancery Guide, albeit an out-of-date version being cited mistakenly, which featured in assessing the practice and appropriateness of attaching penal notices to court orders.

  5. The relevance of CPR 3.10 for rectifying procedural errors was invoked to consider treating the hearing as an application for the order to be set aside, rather than an appeal.

  6. The decisions in Re Taray Brokering Ltd and other cases establishing that penal notices cannot be unilaterally appended to orders, shaping the boundaries of the court’s and litigants’ authority.

  7. Potential for proceedings under CPR 81.2 and Serious Organised Crime Agency v Hymans, where contempt proceedings and the knowledge of penal consequences by parties are at issue in light of a penal notice’s absence.

  8. The implications of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, specifically section 2(4)(a) and (b), in framing the limits of the court’s ability to mandate document production and disclosure.


The court decided to treat the hearing as an application to set aside the second order under CPR 3.10, bypassing the respondent’s procedural choice to appeal. The second order was set aside, the court finding it to be inappropriate given the ambiguity of what was required from the respondent. Instead, the court directed the resolution of disputes about compliance with the first order and planned subsequent hearings to establish the necessary directions.


In Wintermute Trading Limited v Terraform Labs Pte Limited, the court highlighted the paramount importance of clarity in orders, the procedure involved in modifying orders post-issuance, and the limitations imposed on the court by the 1975 Act. By setting aside the second order and establishing directions for determining compliance with the first order, Mr Justice Lavender reinforced that orders should not leave parties guessing at their obligations, thus ensuring fairness in the application of justice. This case serves as a guide for litigants and judicial authorities on procedural propriety, the use of penal notices, and the management of orders when disputes arise regarding their fulfillment.

Related Summaries