The Court held that where both parties to a contested freezing order application enjoyed a measure of success, the appropriate order was that each party bear her own costs. The Court confirmed there is no general or universal rule entitling an innocent third party affected by a freezing order to indemnity costs, and that such an order requires the court to be satisfied the interests of justice warrant it, following Sebastian v Strongwall International. A letter offering to settle that did not comply with UCPR Part 20 and was not advanced as a Calderbank offer did not automatically give rise to indemnity costs but merely enlivened a discretion, and the conditioning of the offer on each party bearing her own costs was relevant to the reasonableness of the offeree's rejection.
The full text is available to signed-in members.