LENKOR ENERGY TRADING DMCC v IRFAN IQBAL PURI

Where bank statements are ordered under the Bankers Books Evidence Act in support of a freezing order, the appropriate start date depends on the requirements of the order and the practical circumstances, including the availability of earlier statements and any burden on the banks or parties.

Costs are determined by applying the principles in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 44. The court considers the overall event, issues on which the successful party failed, and the parties’ conduct. Costs may be apportioned between applications and reduced where claimed costs are excessive or unnecessary.

The claimant sought variation of a freezing order and orders under the Bankers Books Evidence Act. The remaining issues concerned the date from which bank statements had to be provided and the appropriate costs orders for the applications.

The claimant sought statements from 1 January 2012. The defendant argued that statements from the date of the freezing order, 11 July 2017, were sufficient. The court also had to allocate and quantify the costs of the applications, including the banks’ costs.

1. The appropriate start date for statements supplied pursuant to the Bankers Books Evidence Act application was 1 January 2012. The claimant had already supplied statements dating from that point, the date was consistent with the freezing order’s requirements, and no practical difficulty had been identified. The defendant’s submission that statements from 11 July 2017 were sufficient was rejected.
2. The court applied the normal costs principles in Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 44. Relevant considerations included the overall event, issues on which the successful party had lost, and the conduct of the parties.
3. The claimant succeeded in obtaining relief that had not been offered in relation to the bank-statement application. Although the relief was not as broad as sought, this did not justify reducing the claimant’s costs, particularly because the application had been necessary owing to the defendant’s failure to comply with the earlier freezing order. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of and occasioned by that application, including the banks’ costs as agreed.
4. The claimant was entirely unsuccessful on the application to vary the freezing injunction and was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of that application.
5. The claimant’s costs were assessed at £10,967.50 for both applications and divided equally, producing £5,483.75. The defendant’s costs were reduced from £23,133.50 to £14,633.50 to reflect unnecessary or excessive fee-earner attendance and counsel’s fees, with half, £7,316.75, awarded to the defendant. The sums could be set off or included in an accounting in the related litigation.

First-instance decision of the High Court (Commercial Court). The judgment records no appeal or earlier appellate decision.