King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2023-004010 - [2025] EWHC 2689 (KB)

Fecha: 17-Oct-2025

MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN

Chapter Number	Subject	Paragraph number
I	Introduction	1 – 3
II	Background	4 – 15
III	The facts	16 – 60
IV	Penalty for contempt	61- 73
V	Cross undertaking as to damages: the evidence	74 – 91
VI	The law relating to an application for enforcement of a cross-undertaking as to damages	92 – 96
VII	The law relating to applications for fortification of injunctions	97 – 98
VIII	Discussion: causation points	99 - 108
IX	Discussion: discretion points	109 - 115
X	Disposal of application for inquiry as to damages	116
XI	Costs	117 – 124
XII	MGWL’s submission as to costs	125 – 126
XIII	Submission as to costs of Mr Smith and CSM	127 - 130
XIV	Discussion about the incidence of costs	131 - 135
XV	Should the orders made by Ellenbogen J and Morris J stand despite the abandonment of the action?	136 – 137
XVI	The reserved costs in respect of the Contempt Application	138 - 145
XVII	Disposal	146 - 149

MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN:

I Introduction

This is an unusual case. It arises out of a worldwide freezing order (“WFO”) in this jurisdiction made in support of proceedings in Scotland. The WFO was discharged as regards certain defendants for failure to make full and frank disclosure and on a jurisdiction point. That discharge was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Third and Eighth Defendants, whilst being respondents to the WFO, did not join in the discharge application and did not obey the WFO by providing disclosure as required.

Committal proceedings were brought against the Third and Eighth Defendants. Belatedly, they applied to discharge the WFO whilst continuing not to provide the disclosure required under the WFO. The Court refused to postpone the committal proceedings. The Third and Eighth Defendants were found guilty of contempt, and continued to refuse to provide the disclosure. In the meantime, the Court made directions for the discharge application of the Third and Eighth Defendants to be heard at the same time as the decision on penalty for contempt.

In the meantime, MGWL discontinued proceedings in Scotland with the effect that the English proceedings would fall away. The result was that the WFO was set aside. What remained to be decided was the following, namely:

(1)

the penalty for contempt;

(2)

an application for an inquiry as to damages on the cross undertaking;

(3)

the costs of the action including the various applications.