Where a freezing order was made to protect a claim that is subsequently dismissed on appeal, the rationale for the order no longer exists and it should be discharged. A party seeking continuation of the freezing order on a different rationale bears the onus of proving entitlement. Costs of interlocutory applications for freezing and restraining orders that were consented to should be treated as costs in the cause where the applicant's underlying claim fails. Where proceedings are commenced in the wrong court, costs should be assessed on the scale of the court in which they should have been commenced.
The full text is available to signed-in members.