Bravo & Ors v Amerisur Resources Plc

Bravo & Ors v Amerisur Resources Plc

The court held that the regime for freezing orders is distinct from general interim injunctions; costs should not be reserved but determined at the time of the application. The claimants were successful in their applications for freezing orders, though not to the full extent sought, and are entitled to a proportion of their costs. The defendant acted reasonably in some respects, justifying a reduction in the costs awarded. An interim payment on account of costs is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Andres Fernando Bravo & Ors; Defendant: Amerisur Resources PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Determination Following Interim Freezing Order Applications
Outcome
Claimants awarded partial costs of interim applications; interim payment ordered
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Costs of Interim Applications, Jurisdiction, Environmental Contamination, Group Litigation
Civil Procedure Environmental Law Freezing Injunctions Costs of Interim Applications Jurisdiction Environmental Contamination Group Litigation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andres Fernando Bravo & Ors

Claimant

Amerisur Resources PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Determination Following Interim Freezing Order Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of interim freezing order applications should be awarded or reserved
  2. 2 Whether claimants were successful in their applications for freezing orders
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum for interim costs payment

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the regime for freezing orders is distinct from general interim injunctions; costs should not be reserved but determined at the time of the application. The claimants were successful in their applications for freezing orders, though not to the full extent sought, and are entitled to a proportion of their costs. The defendant acted reasonably in some respects, justifying a reduction in the costs awarded. An interim payment on account of costs is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Claimants awarded partial costs of interim applications; interim payment ordered

Orders

  • Claimants awarded 70% of costs of 9 January 2020 hearing, to be assessed.
  • No order as to costs for 12 January 2020 hearing.