A defendant has been ordered to pay legal costs in a contested asset freezing injunction case before the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands Financial Services Division.
Justice David Doyle delivered the ruling on 19 June in the case of Target Global Growth Fund II and Antler Global Fund Master Fund against Liu Xun.
The case involved plaintiffs who had obtained an asset freezing injunction and a proprietary injunction in Singapore.
But these were set aside by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on jurisdictional grounds, according to the judgment.
Fresh injunctions were granted with an undertaking that proceedings would be commenced in the Cayman Islands, leading to an application by summons dated 7 April.
The contested application was heard on 23 May, with Justice Doyle noting it was “the earliest date on which leading counsel were available”.
Various relief was granted, with detailed reasons provided in a judgment delivered on 3 June.
In determining the costs, Justice Doyle distinguished between the two types of injunctions sought.
For the proprietary injunction, he ruled that costs “should, in my judgment, be reserved to the trial judge in accordance with the well-established principles of costs”.
However, regarding the asset freezing injunction, the judge ordered that “the defendant should pay the plaintiffs’ costs”.
Justice Doyle noted that “the defendant was not however fighting the application ‘tooth and nail on every point’.”
He observed that the defendant eventually conceded a good arguable case/serious issue to be tried on the merits in respect of the allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations.
However, they “picked a costly and time-consuming fight on real risk of dissipation and whether it was just and convenient to grant the asset freezing injunction”.
The judge acknowledged that while “the plaintiffs did not obtain an order in exactly the terms they requested”, they nonetheless “obtained substantially what they sought”.
In reaching his decision, Justice Doyle stated: “The defendant lost his fight in resisting the granting of an asset freezing injunction and he must pay the costs of the plaintiffs who were successful, despite the defendant’s opposition, in obtaining an asset freezing injunction.”
The judge declined to make an interim payment on account, citing potential complexity in determining which costs related to each application and insufficient information before the court.
The case is notable for proceeding on a with-notice basis, which Justice Doyle described as “unusual in applications for asset freezing injunctions”, explaining this occurred “in view of what had happened in Singapore”.
