L v O

L v O

The applicant is resident out of the jurisdiction and there is a real risk that enforcement of any costs order would be encumbered by obstacles; security for costs is justified and set at £480,000. The Hadkinson order is refused as contempt is not sufficiently wilful or defiant, and restriction would not be proportionate. Stay of enforcement is granted in substance via respondent's undertaking, not formal stay, to preserve arrangements in country C.

Parties
Applicant: L; Respondent: O
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Application (variation/discharge/set Aside) / Interlocutory Ruling on Stay, Hadkinson Order, and Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs granted; Hadkinson order refused; stay of enforcement effected by undertaking; case management directions issued.
Legal Topics
Variation of Financial Remedy Orders, Barder Event, Hadkinson Order, Security for Costs, Enforcement of Financial Orders, Jurisdiction and Residence, Case Management
Family Law Civil Procedure Variation of Financial Remedy Orders Barder Event Hadkinson Order Security for Costs Enforcement of Financial Orders Jurisdiction and Residence +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Applicant

O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Application (variation/discharge/set Aside) / Interlocutory Ruling on Stay, Hadkinson Order, and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay should be granted on enforcement of lump sum orders and property sale
  2. 2 Whether a Hadkinson order should bar the applicant from proceedings until payment of interest
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is resident out of the jurisdiction and there is a real risk that enforcement of any costs order would be encumbered by obstacles; security for costs is justified and set at £480,000. The Hadkinson order is refused as contempt is not sufficiently wilful or defiant, and restriction would not be proportionate. Stay of enforcement is granted in substance via respondent's undertaking, not formal stay, to preserve arrangements in country C.

Court Disposition

Security for costs granted; Hadkinson order refused; stay of enforcement effected by undertaking; case management directions issued.

Orders

  • Applicant to provide £480,000 as security for costs (£300,000 to frozen account within 14 days or 7 days of account creation, £180,000 by 28 March 2024).
  • Respondent to undertake not to enforce lump sum orders prior to conclusion of proceedings once funds are deposited in escrow account in country C.