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

I shall first consider the approach of MGWL. It seeks the costs of all matters relating to the Contempt Application. This includes (i) service out of the Contempt Application, (ii) the applications for a stay pending the discharge application (dismissed by Soole J) and for an extension of time for service of evidence, (iii) the substantive hearing of 18 November 2024, (iv) the adjournment of the hearing of 20 December 2024, (v) the oral application of 10 January 2025 and the hearings leading to the determination of the penalty for the proved contempts. They submit that they ought to have the costs of the applications for cross-examination which have been dismissed, in respect of Mr Taher in March 2025 and in respect of Mr Kattoura and Ms Wright in June 2025. Likewise, they submit that they ought to have the costs of the unsuccessful application for a stay pending the action against Mr Duthie. They point also to the applications before Ellenbogen J and Morris J, and to the fact that costs orders have been made.

MGWL says that the general rule is that costs should follow the event. It says that it has been the successful party in relation to the Contempt Application. It is critical of the conduct of Mr. Smith and CSM and their procrastination relating to the hearings fixed for 12 June 2024 and 30 July 2024. It points to the fact that over many months from service, Mr. Smith and CSM did not observe the order of Lavender J as amended by Jay J for the provision of information. It says that there was a period of 10 months before the application to set aside. Further, the time provided for the application to set aside was limited by Jay J so that the application was out of time by at least nine months. There was no good reason for this delay. Even after the judgment on contempt was handed down on 13 December 2024, which encouraged late compliance so that this might be taken into account on a penalty hearing, there was still a failure or refusal to provide the information. In the submission of MGWL, a usual order for costs in a proved Contempt Application is that a defendant should pay costs on the indemnity basis.