HT-2022-000254 - [2025] EWHC 1581 (TCC)

Fecha: 23-Ene-2025

Success

Success

19.

There is no question that the applicants were the successful party in the sense that they obtained the relief sought in the application. However, the court may also take into account whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest an issue.

20.

Mr Moraes submits that the respondents have had no success that detracts from the applicants’ success. He points to the following:

The respondents sought the dismissal or stay of the application which they failed to obtain. That is, with respect, no more than saying that the applicants were successful.

ii)

The court found the claim for a beneficial interest was “inherently improbable”. That again is no more than saying that the applicants were successful. In light of the argument on priority, the issue of a beneficial interest did not need to be determined. In any case, it was the product of the difficulties faced by the respondents because of non-compliance with the court’s orders in respect of disclosure.

iii)

The court found that the submission that the freezing injunction was unnecessary following the liquidation of Click St Andrews had considerable force. That is so but the relevant passage in the judgment is followed by the observation that the discharge of the injunction was a matter for the liquidators and that no such application had been made since the liquidation.

iv)

The court considered it open to it to require an undertaking as to damages if the variation had not been made. That slightly overstates the position in that the application being made was for a retrospective undertaking as well as a prospective one and it was only a prospective undertaking which I would have considered granting.

21.

The applicants were themselves unsuccessful in a number of their arguments which are addressed in the judgment under the heading “The alternative cases”. In short, I would not have granted the declaration sought; I found against the applicants on the argument that the injunction should be discharged in its entirety for either of the reasons advanced; and I would not have required a retrospective undertaking as to damages. At paragraph 75, I described the parties’ cases on these issues as far ranging. It is entirely fair to say that the key issue became that of priority but substantial time and cost was expended before and at the hearing on the these far ranging cases.

22.

The respondents submit that the issues on which the applicants failed took up at least half of the submissions both before and at the hearing. In my view that is somewhat exaggerated but there is no doubt that these issues were fully and extensively argued.