Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 3119 (Comm) (25 November 2025)

Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini & Ors (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 3119 (Comm) (25 November 2025)

The costs in the case orders made in September 2022 should not be varied. The interlocutory outcome, even as corrected by the Court of Appeal on the Capacity Point, was mixed, and it would not be just to fix either party with costs in any event. The bank's application to vary the costs orders fails. Indemnity costs are justified for certain parts of the costs variation application due to the bank's unfounded allegations and threats of wasted costs.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3119 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Invest Bank P. S. C.; First Defendant: Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini; Second Defendant: Mohammed Ahmad El-Husseiny; Third Defendant: Alexander Ahmad El-Husseiny; Fourth Defendant: Ziad Ahmad El-Husseiny; Fifth Defendant: Ramzy Ahmad El-Husseiny; Sixth Defendant: Joan Eva Henry; Seventh Defendant: Virtue Trustees (Switzerland) A. G.; Eighth Defendant: Global Green Development Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (costs Variation Application) / Post Trial, Costs Variation Application After Trial and Appeals
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Interlocutory Applications, Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986, Amendment of Pleadings, Payments on Account, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Insolvency Commercial Law Costs Orders Interlocutory Applications Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986 Amendment of Pleadings Payments on Account +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Invest Bank P. S. C.

Claimant

Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini

First Defendant

Mohammed Ahmad El-Husseiny

Second Defendant

Alexander Ahmad El-Husseiny

Third Defendant

Ziad Ahmad El-Husseiny

Fourth Defendant

Ramzy Ahmad El-Husseiny

Fifth Defendant

Joan Eva Henry

Sixth Defendant

Virtue Trustees (Switzerland) A. G.

Seventh Defendant

Global Green Development Limited

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (costs Variation Application) / Post Trial, Costs Variation Application After Trial and Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory costs orders (costs in the case) should be varied after trial and appeals
  2. 2 Whether the outcome at trial is relevant to varying interlocutory costs orders
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for the costs variation application

Ratio Decidendi

The costs in the case orders made in September 2022 should not be varied. The interlocutory outcome, even as corrected by the Court of Appeal on the Capacity Point, was mixed, and it would not be just to fix either party with costs in any event. The bank's application to vary the costs orders fails. Indemnity costs are justified for certain parts of the costs variation application due to the bank's unfounded allegations and threats of wasted costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Bank's application to vary September 2022 costs orders is dismissed.
  • Application to reverse or vary post-trial payment on account orders is dismissed.