Moss & Ors v Martin & Anor [2022] EWHC 3258 (Comm) (22 December 2022)

Moss & Ors v Martin & Anor [2022] EWHC 3258 (Comm) (22 December 2022)

The defendants failed to demonstrate special circumstances rendering enforcement of the November Order inexpedient; no solid evidence of prejudice or merits of the US appeal was provided. The application for a stay was refused. The application to increase the legal expenses cap was granted as reasonable and consistent with the principle that freezing injunctions should not unfairly hinder legal representation. WMC, though not a respondent, may pay legal fees in the ordinary and proper course of business under the freezing order.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3258 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: David Tyler Moss; Claimant: Brandon Gabriel Keating; Claimant: Fidelissimus LLC; Defendant: Brian Martin; Defendant: Holly Susan Bone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement of Foreign Judgments / Post Summary Judgment; Applications for Stay of Execution and Variation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Stay application refused; legal expenses application granted.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Freezing Injunctions, Stay of Execution, Legal Expenses Under Injunctions
Private International Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Freezing Injunctions Stay of Execution Legal Expenses Under Injunctions

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Tyler Moss

Claimant

Brandon Gabriel Keating

Claimant

Fidelissimus LLC

Claimant

Brian Martin

Defendant

Holly Susan Bone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement of Foreign Judgments / Post Summary Judgment; Applications for Stay of Execution and Variation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted on the English enforcement of a US judgment pending appeal in Texas
  2. 2 Whether the cap on legal expenses under the freezing order should be increased
  3. 3 Whether a non-party company (WMC) can pay legal fees under the 'ordinary and proper course of business' exception in a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to demonstrate special circumstances rendering enforcement of the November Order inexpedient; no solid evidence of prejudice or merits of the US appeal was provided. The application for a stay was refused. The application to increase the legal expenses cap was granted as reasonable and consistent with the principle that freezing injunctions should not unfairly hinder legal representation. WMC, though not a respondent, may pay legal fees in the ordinary and proper course of business under the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Stay application refused; legal expenses application granted.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the November Order refused.
  • Cap on legal expenses under the freezing order increased to £260,000.