CR-2022-BRS-000101 - [2025] EWHC 2291 (Ch)

On 18 October 2023, the petitioners applied for an injunction to restrain the active respondents from using the funds of the sixth to eighth respondents to discharge their legal costs. This was listed for hearing before me on 2 November 2023. On 31 October 2023, their solicitor sought an adjournment of the hearing fixed for 2 November 2023. For reasons given at the time, I refused that adjournment. At the hearing on 2 November 2023, Charlie Newington-Bridges of counsel appeared for the petitioners, and Simon Davenport KC and Olivia Chaffin-Laird of counsel appeared for the first to fourth and sixth respondents. The first to fourth and sixth respondents gave undertakings to the court in lieu of an injunction, and an injunction was granted against the fifth respondent, in each case over until 15 November 2023, when there would be a further hearing.

At the further hearing on 15 November 2023, the petitioners’ representation was the same. The first to fourth and sixth respondents were represented by Ms Chaffin-Laird, and on this occasion she also represented the seventh and eighth respondents. The fifth respondent was not present or represented. As a result of evidence filed by the active respondents shortly before the hearing of 15 November 2023, at that hearing the petitioners did not pursue their application for an interim injunction. The argument at that hearing was concerned with the mechanism for putting an end to the application and the costs consequences. I dealt with these in a judgment handed down on 20 November 2023 ([2023] EWHC 2920 (Ch)), giving the petitioners leave to withdraw their application and ordering the first to fourth respondents to pay the petitioners’ costs. Subsequently, I assessed those costs summarily in a written ruling of 8 December 2023 ([2023] EWHC 3151 (Ch)).