Following a trial in which the plaintiff bank succeeded in obtaining judgment against one defendant for fraud and under a personal guarantee, the court addressed competing claims for costs.
The bank sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $600,000, while certain defendants who successfully defended fraud allegations sought substantial indemnity costs for both trial and a prior Mareva injunction motion.
The court found that the bank had overstated and pursued broad allegations of fraud despite prior judicial warnings, unnecessarily lengthening the litigation.
Costs were therefore limited to partial indemnity and further reduced under Rule 57 for litigation conduct.
After applying equitable set‑off against costs awarded to two defendants, the court ordered one defendant to pay net costs to the bank.
