Barclays Bank Plc v Scott Dylan & Ors

Barclays Bank Plc v Scott Dylan & Ors

The normal rule is that costs should follow the event in freezing injunction applications, with respondents paying the claimant's costs except for the costs of the without notice hearing, which are reserved. The respondents' conduct in failing to accept reasonable offers and delaying their position justified indemnity costs from the date of refusal. The distinction between freezing injunctions and ordinary interim relief means the trial will not revisit the same issues, supporting immediate costs orders.

Parties
Claimant: Barclays Bank Plc; Defendant: Scott Dylan; Defendant: Gareth Michael Dylan; Defendant: Sally Ann Glover; Defendant: David Samuel Antrobus; Defendant: Fresh Thinking Group Limited; Defendant: James Mason; Defendant: INC Travel Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Freezing Injunction / Costs Determination Following Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Injunctions
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay claimant's costs of the freezing injunction applications, save for the costs of the without notice hearing which are reserved. Costs to be assessed on the standard basis up to 6 April 2022 and on the indemnity basis thereafter. Detailed assessment ordered with a payment on account of costs.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Costs Orders, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Banking Law Freezing Injunctions Costs Orders Interim Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank Plc

Claimant

Scott Dylan

Defendant

Gareth Michael Dylan

Defendant

Sally Ann Glover

Defendant

David Samuel Antrobus

Defendant

Fresh Thinking Group Limited

Defendant

James Mason

Defendant

INC Travel Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Freezing Injunction / Costs Determination Following Hearing on Continuation of Freezing Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the adjournment application and the freezing injunction applications?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate basis for assessment of costs in freezing injunction cases?

Ratio Decidendi

The normal rule is that costs should follow the event in freezing injunction applications, with respondents paying the claimant's costs except for the costs of the without notice hearing, which are reserved. The respondents' conduct in failing to accept reasonable offers and delaying their position justified indemnity costs from the date of refusal. The distinction between freezing injunctions and ordinary interim relief means the trial will not revisit the same issues, supporting immediate costs orders.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay claimant's costs of the freezing injunction applications, save for the costs of the without notice hearing which are reserved. Costs to be assessed on the standard basis up to 6 April 2022 and on the indemnity basis thereafter. Detailed assessment ordered with a payment on account of costs.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay claimant's costs of the freezing injunction applications, except for the costs of the without notice hearing which are reserved.
  • Costs to be assessed on the standard basis up to 6 April 2022 and on the indemnity basis thereafter.