Moustapha v Nelson (No 3)

In the case of Moustapha v Nelson, the plaintiff sought to obtain documents related to the proceeds from the sale of the defendant's real estate, which was sold during the course of a protracted litigation. The plaintiff made an application for a freezing order to preserve the bank records associated with the sale proceeds, which the court rejected. The plaintiff then sought a declaration that the order constituted an interim preservation order, arguing that the defendant had an insufficient risk of dissipating the assets in question. The defendant, a natural person residing in Australia, opposed the application on several grounds, including that the order would be a fishing expedition. The court considered the nature of the application, the evidence provided, and the relevant legal principles.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application for a freezing order constituted an interim preservation order and whether such an order should be granted in these circumstances. The court also considered whether the order for costs should be separate from the general costs of the proceedings and whether the defendant should be ordered to pay a fixed sum on account of the costs of the second unsuccessful application. In making its decision, the court examined the applicable legal principles and the evidence presented by both parties.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's application did not constitute an interim preservation order, as it was not made in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court found that the plaintiff's application was a fishing expedition, as it sought to obtain documents that were not relevant to the issues in the case. The court also found that there was an insufficient risk of dissipation of the assets in question, as the defendant was a natural person residing in Australia. Therefore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a freezing order and ordered the plaintiff to pay a fixed sum on account of the defendant's costs of the second unsuccessful application. The court held that the order for costs should be separate from the general costs of the proceedings.

In light of the above, the court made an order that the plaintiff's application for a freezing order did not constitute an interim preservation order and was dismissed. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay a fixed sum on account of the defendant's costs of the second unsuccessful application, which was to be separate from the general costs of the proceedings. The court did not make any further orders.