Clearview International Ltd & Ors v PWH Com Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 167 (Ch) (06 February 2009)

Clearview International Ltd & Ors v PWH Com Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 167 (Ch) (06 February 2009)

Given the mixed success, exaggeration, and conduct of both sides, the fair course is to make no order as to the costs of the claims, leaving all parties to bear their own costs. However, the Claimants must pay the Defendants' costs of the Freezing Order applications and related matters, and the cross-undertakings in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 167 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Clearview International Limited; Claimant: Armando Bragoli; Claimant: Steven McMahon; Defendant: PWH. COM Limited; Defendant: Darren Hinett; Defendant: John Farnell; Defendant: Mark Woods; Defendant: Polaris World Holidays Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery) / Post Trial, Costs and Consequential Orders
Outcome
No order as to costs of the claims; Claimants to pay Defendants' costs of Freezing Order applications; cross-undertakings in damages to be enforced; other costs reserved or to be determined at future hearing.
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Costs Orders, Freezing Injunctions, Cross Undertakings in Damages, Trusts and Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity Derivative Claims Costs Orders Freezing Injunctions Cross Undertakings in Damages Trusts and Fiduciary Duties

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clearview International Limited

Claimant

Armando Bragoli

Claimant

Steven McMahon

Claimant

PWH. COM Limited

Defendant

Darren Hinett

Defendant

John Farnell

Defendant

Mark Woods

Defendant

Polaris World Holidays Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery) / Post Trial, Costs and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs orders following mixed success in derivative and personal claims
  2. 2 Enforcement of cross-undertakings in damages after discharge of Freezing Order
  3. 3 Entitlement to liens or allowances for trustees' expenditure

Ratio Decidendi

Given the mixed success, exaggeration, and conduct of both sides, the fair course is to make no order as to the costs of the claims, leaving all parties to bear their own costs. However, the Claimants must pay the Defendants' costs of the Freezing Order applications and related matters, and the cross-undertakings in damages are to be enforced against the Claimants, as the Freezing Order was unjustified.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs of the claims; Claimants to pay Defendants' costs of Freezing Order applications; cross-undertakings in damages to be enforced; other costs reserved or to be determined at future hearing.

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the claims; each party to bear own costs.
  • Claimants to pay Second and Third Defendants' costs of and occasioned by the Freezing Order applications, including discharge and fortification applications.