Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan & Ors [2022] EWHC 3720 (Ch) (05 July 2022)

Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan & Ors [2022] EWHC 3720 (Ch) (05 July 2022)

The normal rule is that costs of freezing injunction applications should follow the event, except for the costs of the original without notice hearing, which are reserved. The respondents' conduct, including failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer and delay in indicating their position, justifies awarding the claimant its costs on the standard basis up to 6 April 2022 and on the indemnity basis thereafter.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3720 (Ch)
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
Freezing Injunction Applications (interim Relief) / Costs Determination Following Return Date Hearing
Outcome
Respondents ordered to pay claimant's costs of the freezing injunction applications, save for the costs of the actual 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 payment on account.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Costs Orders, Interim Relief, Basis of Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Banking Law Freezing Injunctions Costs Orders Interim Relief Basis of Assessment of Costs

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

Freezing Injunction Applications (interim Relief) / Costs Determination Following Return Date Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the adjournment application?
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the freezing injunction applications?
  3. 3 On what basis should the costs be assessed (standard or indemnity)?

Ratio Decidendi

The normal rule is that costs of freezing injunction applications should follow the event, except for the costs of the original without notice hearing, which are reserved. The respondents' conduct, including failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer and delay in indicating their position, justifies awarding the claimant its costs on the standard basis up to 6 April 2022 and on the indemnity basis thereafter.

Court Disposition

Respondents ordered to pay claimant's costs of the freezing injunction applications, save for the costs of the actual 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 payment on account.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay claimant's costs of the freezing injunction applications, except for the costs of the actual 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.