Invest Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini & Ors

Invest Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini & Ors

The just order is for interlocutory costs to remain in the case, as originally made in September 2022, because the outcome of the interlocutory battle was mixed and neither party was wholly successful. The trial outcome is irrelevant to the reconsideration of interlocutory costs orders. The bank's application to vary costs orders fails.

Parties
Claimant: INVEST BANK P. S. C.; First Defendant: AHMAD MOHAMMAD EL-HUSSEINI; Second Defendant: MOHAMMED AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY; Third Defendant: ALEXANDER AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY; Fourth Defendant: ZIAD AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY; Fifth Defendant: RAMZY AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY; Sixth Defendant: JOAN EVA HENRY; Seventh Defendant: VIRTUE TRUSTEES (SWITZERLAND) A. G.; Eighth Defendant: GLOBAL GREEN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Post Trial Costs Variation Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Variation of Interlocutory Costs, S.423 Insolvency Act 1986, Payments on Account, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Insolvency Commercial Law Costs Orders Variation of Interlocutory Costs S.423 Insolvency Act 1986 Payments on Account Indemnity Costs

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INVEST BANK P. S. C.

Claimant

AHMAD MOHAMMAD EL-HUSSEINI

First Defendant

MOHAMMED AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY

Second Defendant

ALEXANDER AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY

Third Defendant

ZIAD AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY

Fourth Defendant

RAMZY AHMAD EL-HUSSEINY

Fifth Defendant

JOAN EVA HENRY

Sixth Defendant

VIRTUE TRUSTEES (SWITZERLAND) A. G.

Seventh Defendant

GLOBAL GREEN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Post Trial Costs Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should interlocutory costs orders made in September 2022 be varied in light of the Court of Appeal's decision on the Capacity Point?
  2. 2 Is the outcome at trial relevant to the reconsideration of interlocutory costs orders?
  3. 3 Should costs be assessed on the indemnity basis due to conduct and offers made by defendants?

Ratio Decidendi

The just order is for interlocutory costs to remain in the case, as originally made in September 2022, because the outcome of the interlocutory battle was mixed and neither party was wholly successful. The trial outcome is irrelevant to the reconsideration of interlocutory costs orders. The bank's application to vary costs orders fails.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • September 2022 costs orders remain unvaried; costs to be in the case.
  • Bank's application to vary costs orders is dismissed.