Corallo & Ors v Pinelli & Ors [2026] EWHC 90 (Ch) (21 January 2026)

Corallo & Ors v Pinelli & Ors [2026] EWHC 90 (Ch) (21 January 2026)

The Defendants were the successful parties as they resisted the freezing order application, so the general rule on costs applies. However, a 25% deduction is warranted to reflect the Defendants' abandonment of the insurance point, failure on the threshold issue, and prior non-disclosure. Cross-undertakings from the Claimants are required because the undertakings given by the Defendants are equivalent in substance to injunctive relief, and the purpose of cross-undertakings applies equally whether relief is granted by order or by undertakings.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 90 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Francesco Corallo; Claimant/applicant: Horizon Re Limited; Claimant/applicant: Lowlands Managing Partner B. V.; Defendant/respondent: Giuseppe Pinelli; Defendant/respondent: Trading Office Limited; Defendant/respondent: Lemido Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Post Judgment Consequential Matters (costs and Undertakings)
Outcome
Claimants to pay 75% of Defendants' costs, assessed summarily at £32,500. Claimants required to give cross-undertakings in damages.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Undertakings, Costs Orders, Summary Assessment, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Injunctions Costs Freezing Orders Cross Undertakings Costs Orders Summary Assessment 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francesco Corallo

Claimant/applicant

Horizon Re Limited

Claimant/applicant

Lowlands Managing Partner B. V.

Claimant/applicant

Giuseppe Pinelli

Defendant/respondent

Trading Office Limited

Defendant/respondent

Lemido Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Post Judgment Consequential Matters (costs and Undertakings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate order as to costs following the dismissal of the freezing order application?
  2. 2 Should the Claimants be required to give cross-undertakings in respect of undertakings given by the Defendants?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants were the successful parties as they resisted the freezing order application, so the general rule on costs applies. However, a 25% deduction is warranted to reflect the Defendants' abandonment of the insurance point, failure on the threshold issue, and prior non-disclosure. Cross-undertakings from the Claimants are required because the undertakings given by the Defendants are equivalent in substance to injunctive relief, and the purpose of cross-undertakings applies equally whether relief is granted by order or by undertakings.

Court Disposition

Claimants to pay 75% of Defendants' costs, assessed summarily at £32,500. Claimants required to give cross-undertakings in damages.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay Defendants £32,500 as 75% of their assessed costs.
  • Claimants to provide cross-undertakings in damages to Defendants and third parties as per standard form.