Following a prior decision staying the action on terms, the court determined the issue of costs arising from interlocutory motions on the Commercial List concerning enforcement of a foreign judgment and jurisdiction over the defendants.
The moving party defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs after obtaining a stay.
The court reviewed the principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principle, as well as appellate guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than a full indemnity of actual expenses.
Although the defendants obtained a stay, the court held that the substantive success on the motion was mixed, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the jurisdiction issue while failing on the asset‑exigibility argument.
Given the mixed success and the novelty of the jurisdiction and service ex juris issues, the court ordered that no costs be payable by any party.
