Case No. FD05D04818

60.I turn now to consider the outstanding dispute in relation to costs.The Share Transfer and Injunction Applications61.In relation to the Share Transfer Application, Ms Behbehani is not seeking her costs of that application. Her case is that there should be no order in relation to costs.62.The Former Receivers seek their costs of both the Share Transfer and the Injunction Applications. I have decided that they are entitled to an order for costs. I take into account that Ms Behbehani recognised that there would need to be some form of security for the Former Receivers’ costs of the Receivership when she launched her application. The lien over the Setubal shares arose in their favour by operation of law and, if the shares were to be transferred, it was always obvious that their interests would require protection in one form or another pending the resolution of their outstanding claims. However, the fact remains that there was no offer forthcoming in relation to the provision of alternative security until the evening before the hearing on 25 November last year. This was a crucial element of her application. It could and should have been the subject of careful thought and the formulation of an offer which would have allowed time in advance of that hearing for detailed consideration of the form and adequacy of the proposed security. The Former Receivers were not afforded that opportunity. The costs of the hearing were incurred. I understand that matters have not moved on significantly, if at all, in the intervening months save for the proposals which are now reflected in the draft order submitted to the court (see paras 24 and 25).63.However, whatever the alleged shortcomings in Ms Behbehani’s approach to the conduct of this litigation, I see no proper basis on which to order indemnity costs in relation to the Share Transfer Application. I am satisfied that there was a proper basis for her application although it was unfortunate that its progress was not managed more efficiently by HA Law. The fact is that a proposal has now been made to secure the interests of the Former Receivers. Ms Behbehani must pay the costs but I am not going to penalise her further by requiring her to pay those costs on an indemnity basis. Ms Behbehani will pay the Former Receiver’s costs of these applications to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed.The Debarring Application64.In this case and for all the reasons set out earlier in this ruling, costs should follow the event. The Former Receivers have been successful in their application and they should be entitled to their costs. These, too, will be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.Matters arising since 7 March 202265.Since the last hearing on 7 March 2022, there has been further correspondence with the court in relation to the assessment of costs.66.On 9 May 2022 Mr Kelmanson of Summit Law wrote to the court in relation to the ongoing assessment of the costs which were ordered to be paid pursuant to the order I made on 20 May 2021. Ms Behbehani has failed to date to pay those costs and is thereby in ongoing default of my order. In the circumstances, I am asked to consider making what would in effect be a free-standing debarring order preventing her from participating in that costs assessment process. The concern in relation to her apparent disengagement arises also in relation to the further substantial payment on account which is included in the order which I have now approved. Whilst she has apparently indicated through her counsel that she does not seek to resist such a further payment on account in principle, there is concern on the part of those acting for the Former Receivers that there may be further default on her part. In these circumstances I am asked to consider the inclusion in my order of two further provisions:-(i)that Ms Behbehani shall be debarred from participating further in the costs assessment proceedings commenced on 18 March 2022 until such time as she shall have paid, in full, the sum of £40,000 being the payment on account of costs contained in the order of the court dated 20 May 2021; and(ii)she shall further be debarred from participating in any cost assessment proceedings relating to costs payable under the present order until such time as she shall have paid in full the sum set out in para 22 of the order representing two-thirds of the Former Receivers’ costs incurred to date.67.I have considered carefully whether to accede to that request. If included, these provisions would necessarily need to be qualified by a liberty to apply. These are essentially ‘without notice’ debarring applications although Mr Kelmanson quite properly included HA Law in the distribution of his email of 9 May 2022. Whilst I am keenly aware of the overriding objective and the need to limit appropriately and proportionately the time which the court can allocate to this case, I suspect that the inclusion of these additional orders would prompt just such an application by Ms Behbehani. It could take many weeks to list a hearing and we would simply build further delay and expense into the litigation which now requires a swift resolution.68.What I am prepared to say is this. Court orders and time limits must be complied with. The court’s decisions as reflected in its orders are not ‘invitations to treat’. I expect Ms Behbehani to comply with the precise terms of my order. I expect her to engage in a timely way with the ongoing process of the costs assessment in accordance with the requirements of CPR. If she fails to do so, I will entertain a further application on the papers and, in these circumstances, she should expect the court to consider granting costs on an indemnity basis.69.That is my decision.1 See para 43 of the skeleton argument dated 24 November 2021 filed by Ms Venkata on behalf of Ms Behbehani for the purposes of the hearing on 25 November 2021.2 as at February 2022