The Court ordered indemnity costs payable forthwith in favour of the second defendant after the plaintiff withdrew its application for continuation of a freezing order. The order was based on multiple instances of material non-disclosure on the ex parte application (including failure to disclose a deed of termination, return of cryptocurrency, and a caveat over property), persistence in a hopeless application despite correspondence identifying deficiencies, failure to engage with the second defendant before seeking ex parte relief, and non-compliance with court directions to file submissions. The Court treated the withdrawn freezing order application as a discrete, concluded stage of litigation warranting immediate costs assessment rather than deferral to the final outcome.
The full text is available to signed-in members.