Gable Insurance AG (Incorporated in Liechtenstein) (In Liquidation) v William Dewsall & Ors

Gable Insurance AG (Incorporated in Liechtenstein) (In Liquidation) v William Dewsall & Ors

Costs orders must reflect both the outcome of the trial and the conduct of the parties in interim applications. Where a party is successful at trial, they are generally entitled to their costs unless conduct justifies a reduction. Indemnity costs are justified only where conduct is outside the norm. For interim applications, costs may be reserved to trial and determined in light of the overall outcome and conduct. Where interim relief is obtained but the claim fails, or vice versa, the court must balance justice and proportionality in allocating costs, including reductions for partial success or misconduct.

Parties
Claimant: Gable Insurance AG (Incorporated in Liechtenstein) (In Liquidation); First Defendant: Mr William Dewsall; Second Defendant: Mr Michael Hirschfield; Third Defendant: Mrs Judith Dewsall; Fourth Defendant: Horatio Risk Consulting LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Post Trial, Costs and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Multiple costs orders made: costs awarded to and against various parties on standard or indemnity basis, with reductions for partial success or conduct; no order as to costs in some applications.
Legal Topics
Costs, Freezing Orders, Search Orders, Disclosure, Contempt of Court, Indemnity Costs, Standard Costs, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Freezing Orders Search Orders Disclosure Contempt of Court Indemnity Costs +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gable Insurance AG (Incorporated in Liechtenstein) (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Mr William Dewsall

First Defendant

Mr Michael Hirschfield

Second Defendant

Mrs Judith Dewsall

Third Defendant

Horatio Risk Consulting LLP

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Post Trial, Costs and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following trial and interim applications
  2. 2 Basis for indemnity versus standard costs
  3. 3 Effect of party conduct on costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

Costs orders must reflect both the outcome of the trial and the conduct of the parties in interim applications. Where a party is successful at trial, they are generally entitled to their costs unless conduct justifies a reduction. Indemnity costs are justified only where conduct is outside the norm. For interim applications, costs may be reserved to trial and determined in light of the overall outcome and conduct. Where interim relief is obtained but the claim fails, or vice versa, the court must balance justice and proportionality in allocating costs, including reductions for partial success or misconduct.

Court Disposition

Multiple costs orders made: costs awarded to and against various parties on standard or indemnity basis, with reductions for partial success or conduct; no order as to costs in some applications.

Orders

  • GIAG to pay Mrs Dewsall’s costs of the main proceedings on the standard basis.
  • Mr Dewsall to pay GIAG’s costs relating to the first worldwide freezing order on the indemnity basis.