Gable Insurance AG (Incorporated in Liechtenstein) (In Liquidation) v William Dewsall & Ors

The court has a broad discretion as to costs under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.2. The usual order may be displaced by the parties’ conduct, the outcome of individual issues and the overall justice of the case.

Indemnity costs require conduct or circumstances outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of proceedings. A successful interim application does not invariably attract its costs where costs were reserved to trial. The court must consider the nature of the application, the extent to which it was contested, the result at trial and the parties’ conduct. Alleged failures of full and frank disclosure may be considered at a later costs hearing, but detailed investigation will ordinarily be inappropriate unless a clear and significant breach is readily apparent.

This was a first-instance consequential costs judgment following a two-week trial in July 2025 and the main judgment handed down on 5 September 2025. The court determined reserved costs relating to a first worldwide freezing order, a search order and related contempt proceedings, and a second worldwide freezing order.

The principal issues were whether the successful parties should recover costs, whether costs should be reduced to reflect partial success or conduct, and whether costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis. The court also considered the significance of the trial outcome where interim application costs had been reserved.

1. General costs discretion. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 44.2, the unsuccessful party will ordinarily pay the successful party’s costs, but the court may make a different order having regard to all the circumstances, including conduct and partial success.
2. Indemnity costs. The applicable test was whether conduct or circumstances took the case outside the norm, meaning outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of proceedings, following Excelsior Commercial and Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (a firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 879 and Esure Services Ltd v Quarcoo [2009] EWCA Civ 595. Mr Dewsall’s concealment and destruction of documents, obstruction of the search and failures concerning assets and expenditure justified indemnity costs in several respects. Horatio’s failure to engage with the proceedings, without more, did not.
3. Full and frank disclosure. A costs judge may consider an alleged breach of full and frank disclosure on a without-notice application without making a collateral attack on the interim order. However, it is generally unrealistic and undesirable to conduct a detailed investigation after trial unless the evidence readily shows a clear and significant breach. The court referred to Franses v Al Assad [2007] EWHC 2442 (Ch).
4. Interim applications. The guidance in Dos Santos v Unitel [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 indicates that a party which seriously contests an interim application may well be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs. It does not establish an automatic rule. Where costs are reserved, the trial outcome remains relevant, particularly where the application was uncontested or was continued by consent.
5. Orders. GIAG recovered costs of the first freezing order from Mr Dewsall on the indemnity basis and search-order costs from Mr Dewsall on the indemnity basis and Horatio on the standard basis. There was no order as to search-order or contempt-application costs between GIAG and Mrs Dewsall. Costs of the second freezing order were awarded to GIAG in reduced proportions, with indemnity costs payable by Mr Dewsall and standard-basis costs payable by Horatio and Mrs Dewsall. GIAG was ordered to pay 50% of Mrs Dewsall’s costs of that application on the indemnity basis.

The judgment was a first-instance consequential costs decision following the main trial judgment handed down on 5 September 2025. The judgment records that Mrs Dewsall had previously appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal against a domestic freezing order, but no appeal from this costs judgment is stated.