Bank Notes

C - Costs and expenses

12/5/20

KOZA v KOZA ALTIN ISLETMELERI AS [2020] EWHC 1092 (Ch)

Considers what order should be made as to costs when an applicant obtains an interlocutory injunction on the basis of balance of convenience [10]. On the facts the balance of convenience was significantly against the respondent and the court was likely to be better placed than another judge to decide the question of costs. The applicant was therefore entitled to the costs of the application which were to be borne by the second respondent alone as he was the “real master of the litigation” [27]. Payment on account of just over 50% was appropriate [45].

23/5/19

KOZA LTD v AKCIL [2019] EWCA Civ 891

Considers the proper scope of the exception in freezing orders enabling dispositions in the ordinary and proper course of business (the so-called Angel Bell exception) [22] - [27].

26/2/19

EMMOTT v MICHAEL WILSON & PARTNERS LTD [2019] EWCA Civ 219

In a post-judgment freezing order it will sometimes and perhaps usually be inappropriate to include the so-called “Angel Bell” exception allowing payments in the ordinary course of business [56]. The appropriateness or otherwise of the exception in such a case should be treated as turning on the facts of the individual case, having regard to the ambit of the freezing order sought, the assets frozen and the impact on the judgment debtor’s business [57]. On the facts the judge below had been entitled to remove the exception. This was not a case where the debtor could not pay; the debtor had made every effort to resist enforcement and could have resolved the matter by paying the judgment sum into court.

4/2/14

FORTRESS VALUE RECOVERY FUND I LLC v BLUE SKYE OPPORTUNITIES FUND LP [2014] EWHC (Comm)

Where certain assets of the defendant were subject to a freezing order, the court restrained the defendant from using the assets to meet business and legal expenses when funding to cover those expenses was likely to be available from co-defendants.