CRO v REC & Anor
The freezing order does not oblige respondents to notify the applicant of the amount spent on legal expenses, as the standard wording with the Source Proviso does not expressly impose such an obligation.
- Parties
- Applicant: CRO; Respondent: REC; Respondent: RUI
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 03 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial / Ruling on Interpretation of Freezing Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Freezing Orders, Legal Expenses Proviso, 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Parties
CRO
Applicant
REC
Respondent
RUI
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Ruling on Interpretation of Freezing Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the standard form freezing order with the Source Proviso obliges respondents to notify the applicant of the amount spent on legal expenses
Ratio Decidendi
The freezing order does not oblige respondents to notify the applicant of the amount spent on legal expenses, as the standard wording with the Source Proviso does not expressly impose such an obligation.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Respondents are not obliged to notify the applicant of the amount spent on legal expenses under the freezing order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment