AB and Ors v CD and Ors

AB and Ors v CD and Ors

The court refused to grant the defendant's application to vary the proprietary freezing order to permit the realisation and charging of assets for payment of legal fees under the proposed conditional fee agreement. Although the order contained a standard exception for reasonable legal expenses, the court found this was an exceptional case due to the existence of proprietary claims over all the defendant's assets and the risk of extinguishing the claimants' claims. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed legal fees were reasonable. Applying Marino principles, the court exercised its discretion to allow the release of £1.2 million plus VAT for legal expenses,...

Parties
Claimant: AB and others; Defendant: CD and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Proprietary and Non Proprietary Freezing Orders / Interlocutory Application to Vary Proprietary Freezing Order
Outcome
Application refused in part; limited relief granted under court's discretion.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Freezing Orders, Legal Expenses From Frozen Assets, Interpretation of Court Orders, Conditional Fee Agreements
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts Proprietary Freezing Orders Legal Expenses From Frozen Assets Interpretation of Court Orders Conditional Fee Agreements

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB and others

Claimant

CD and others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proprietary and Non Proprietary Freezing Orders / Interlocutory Application to Vary Proprietary Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to realise and charge assets subject to a proprietary freezing order to pay legal fees under a conditional fee agreement
  2. 2 Interpretation of the 'reasonable legal expenses' exception in the proprietary freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to vary the order in favour of the defendant in light of proprietary claims

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant the defendant's application to vary the proprietary freezing order to permit the realisation and charging of assets for payment of legal fees under the proposed conditional fee agreement. Although the order contained a standard exception for reasonable legal expenses, the court found this was an exceptional case due to the existence of proprietary claims over all the defendant's assets and the risk of extinguishing the claimants' claims. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed legal fees were reasonable. Applying Marino principles, the court exercised its discretion to allow the release of £1.2 million plus VAT for legal expenses,...

Court Disposition

Application refused in part; limited relief granted under court's discretion.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to vary the proprietary freezing order to permit realisation and charging of assets for payment of legal fees under the conditional fee agreement is refused.
  • Court authorises release of £1.2 million plus VAT from the disputed assets for the defendant's legal expenses, in addition to £120,000 already advanced.