Klotho Brands Ltd v Stanford [2025] EWHC 3075 (Ch) (24 November 2025)

There is no procedural or substantive requirement for the witness statement to be verified under oath for enforcement of the costs order; the application for stay is dismissed as meritless.

Citation: [2025] EWHC 3075 (Ch)
Parties: Claimant/respondent: Klotho Brands Limited (formerly known as Lion/Heaven UK II Limited); Defendant/applicant: Kevin-Gerald Stanford (formerly known as Kevin Gerald Stanford)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 November 2025
Procedural Posture: Application to Stay Costs Order / Post Judgment, Costs Enforcement
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Costs Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Verification of Evidence, Part 8 Procedure

Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Costs Orders Enforcement of Judgments Verification of Evidence Part 8 Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Klotho Brands Limited (formerly known as Lion/Heaven UK II Limited)

Claimant/respondent

Kevin-Gerald Stanford (formerly known as Kevin Gerald Stanford)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application to Stay Costs Order / Post Judgment, Costs Enforcement

Legal Issues

1 Whether enforcement of costs order should be stayed pending verification of witness statement under oath
2 Whether procedural rules require witness statement to be verified under oath for costs enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

There is no procedural or substantive requirement for the witness statement to be verified under oath for enforcement of the costs order; the application for stay is dismissed as meritless.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

Application for stay of costs order dismissed
Application for restriction on reliance on witness statement dismissed