Case No. EWHC-755-(IPEC)

65.The Defendants have adduced evidence of their lack of means. The Claimants have several times discouraged the Court from reviewing it, on the basis that it was not necessary to do so. While the Claimants previously questioned the adequacy and accuracy of that evidence, they have never suggested that a substantive review was necessary to fairly dispose of the application. In the circumstances, the Defendants’ evidence was not substantively assessed or rejected, either during the hearing of the Claimants’ initial application for an interim payment award or when rejecting the Defendants’ N245 applications. The strong inference from the Claimants’ submissions was that the time for consideration of such evidence would be following an appropriate application during any enforcement process.66.The Claimants have previously resisted any review of the Defendants’ evidence and do not suggest that one is now necessary to decide the application. This means that if the order sought is made as requested, no consideration of the Defendants’ financial position will have taken place, and they will be placed in the very difficult position of trying to resist a strike-out following a breach of an unless order. 67.That being the case, I do not regard factors (4) and (5) in weighing heavily in favour of granting the Claimants’ application.68.In the circumstances, this is not one of those general situations in which the absence of “proper and sufficient evidence of impecuniosity” weighs heavily in favour of requiring payment of a costs order in order to be allow to continue to contest the proceedings.