CRO v REC & Anor [2023] EWHC 189 (Comm) (03 February 2023)

CRO v REC & Anor [2023] EWHC 189 (Comm) (03 February 2023)

The standard form freezing order with the Source Proviso does not require respondents to notify applicants of the amounts spent on legal expenses, only to identify the source of funds used. Such a disclosure obligation must be imposed by express language, which is absent in the standard form.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 189 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: CRO; Defendant/respondent: REC; Defendant/respondent: RUI
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Judgment on Interpretation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Legal Expenses Proviso, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Legal Expenses Proviso Disclosure Obligations

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CRO

Claimant/applicant

REC

Defendant/respondent

RUI

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Judgment on Interpretation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the standard form freezing order with the Source Proviso requires respondents to notify applicants of the amounts spent on legal expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The standard form freezing order with the Source Proviso does not require respondents to notify applicants of the amounts spent on legal expenses, only to identify the source of funds used. Such a disclosure obligation must be imposed by express language, which is absent in the standard form.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Respondents are not obliged to notify the Applicant of the amount spent on legal expenses under the freezing order.