HARRINGTON & CHARLES TRADING LIMITED & Ors. v JATIN RAJNIKANT MEHTA & Ors.

HARRINGTON & CHARLES TRADING LIMITED & Ors. v JATIN RAJNIKANT MEHTA & Ors.

The court held that the general rule for interim injunctions (that costs are reserved) does not automatically apply to freezing orders, which are distinct. Since the defendants unsuccessfully contested the discharge and continuation applications, they should pay the claimants' costs for those applications from 6...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Harrington & Charles Trading Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Bramhall & Lonsdale Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Holdwave Trading Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: OC305234 LLP (in liquidation); Claimant: Oceanroad Global Services Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Connecor (UK) Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Colin Diss (as Liquidator of the First to Sixth Claimants); Claimant: Nicholas Stewart Wood (as Liquidator of the First to Sixth Claimants); Defendant: Jatin Rajnikant Mehta; Defendant: Sonia Mehta; Defendant: Vishal Jatin Mehta; Defendant: Suraj Jatin Mehta; Defendant: Haytham Salman Ali Abu Obidah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Costs Following Interim Applications (without Notice, Continuation, and Discharge Applications)
Outcome
Defendants to pay claimants' costs of the discharge applications and continuation application from 6 July 2022; costs of the without notice applications reserved to trial judge.
Legal Topics
Costs, Freezing Orders, Interim Injunctions, Discharge Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Freezing Orders Interim Injunctions Discharge Applications

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrington & Charles Trading Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Bramhall & Lonsdale Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Holdwave Trading Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

OC305234 LLP (in liquidation)

Claimant

Oceanroad Global Services Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Connecor (UK) Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Colin Diss (as Liquidator of the First to Sixth Claimants)

Claimant

Nicholas Stewart Wood (as Liquidator of the First to Sixth Claimants)

Claimant

Jatin Rajnikant Mehta

Defendant

Sonia Mehta

Defendant

Vishal Jatin Mehta

Defendant

Suraj Jatin Mehta

Defendant

Haytham Salman Ali Abu Obidah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Costs Following Interim Applications (without Notice, Continuation, and Discharge Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs of without notice applications, continuation application, and discharge applications should be paid by the defendants or reserved to trial judge.
  2. 2 Whether the general rule for costs in interim injunctions applies to freezing orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the general rule for interim injunctions (that costs are reserved) does not automatically apply to freezing orders, which are distinct. Since the defendants unsuccessfully contested the discharge and continuation applications, they should pay the claimants' costs for those applications from 6 July 2022. Costs of the without notice applications are reserved to the trial judge, as the defendants were not on risk for those costs before that date.

Court Disposition

Defendants to pay claimants' costs of the discharge applications and continuation application from 6 July 2022; costs of the without notice applications reserved to trial judge.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimants' costs of the discharge applications and continuation application incurred after 6 July 2022.
  • Costs of the without notice applications (before 6 July 2022) reserved to be dealt with by the trial judge.