HT-2024-BHM-000012 - [2024] EWHC 2800 (TCC)

In brief summary, the Claimant’s case is that it is entitled to its costs of enforcing the award and resisting the Defendant’s application for a stay on an indemnity basis, the Defendant having withdrawn its application for a stay. The Defendant’s position is that there should be no order for costs, on the ground that the Claimant failed to provide information the Defendant had requested before the Claimant issued its application to enforce the award and before the Defendant issued its application for a stay. The Defendant argues that the costs of both applications would have been avoided had the Claimant behaved more reasonably by disclosing at an earlier stage the information on which it eventually relied, in accordance with the Overriding Objective. The Claimant argues that the burden of proof that the Claimant is likely to be unable to repay the judgment, should it be ordered to do so, is on the Defendant and the authorities make clear that the Claimant is under no obligation to disclose financial information to assist the Defendant to discharge that burden.