T v T

A freezing injunction may be varied where the evidence shows that a lower level of security adequately protects the respondent’s position. A party should not seek prematurely to short-circuit a separately listed application where there is no prejudice and insufficient time has been allowed. An unreasonable refusal to accept an open offer which would have resolved the issue may justify indemnity costs.

The applicant sought to reduce the amount secured by a Mareva injunction from £500,000 to £68,000. The respondent accepted that some reduction was appropriate but sought a limit of £150,000, reflecting anticipated costs and other sums due. The applicant also sought to strike out or determine immediately the respondent’s pending application for a Civil Restraint Order, although that application already had a listed hearing.

The court therefore had to determine the appropriate level of security and whether the Civil Restraint Order application should be dealt with prematurely.

1. Mareva injunction. The court had read the earlier judgments in the ancillary-relief proceedings and was bound by the findings made in them, including adverse findings concerning the applicant’s credibility. The respondent required an appropriate degree of security to ensure that sums due to her could be recovered.
2. The applicant suffered no prejudice from reducing the injunction to £150,000. Although the respondent’s schedule included anticipated future costs, any balance not ultimately required could be paid to the applicant. The assets subject to the injunction were therefore reduced from £500,000 to £150,000.
3. Civil Restraint Order. The court declined to determine the application immediately. A hearing had already been fixed, the time estimate for the present summons was insufficient to deal fairly with both matters, and the applicant would suffer no prejudice from the application being heard on the listed date. The process could not properly be short-circuited by a premature order.
4. Costs. The respondent had made an open offer to reduce the injunction to £150,000. The hearing had consequently been unnecessary, and the applicant’s unreasonable refusal to accept the offer warranted indemnity costs. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the summons on the indemnity basis.