<center><span class="news-text_italic-underline">[2026] 5 WLUK 257</span> — King's Bench Division (Technology & Construction Court) (Adrian Williamson KC), 15 May 2026</center>
The claimant's application for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision was refused on the basis that there were two mutually exclusive accounts of the existence of the contract and that at trial the unsuccessful party's version of events was likely to be regarded as dishonest. The defendant applied to set aside the freezing order, contending that the refusal of summary judgment constituted a material change of circumstances warranting its discharge.
<span class="news-text_medium">Held:</span> Application refused.
<span class="news-text_medium">Non-compliance:</span> The defendant was in continuing breach of the disclosure requirements imposed by the orders granting and continuing the injunction. The court has discretion, where a party is in breach of an order and in continuing contempt of court, to decline to hear that party further. In the exercise of that discretion and by reason of the defendant's continuing breaches, the court declined to continue hearing the application to set aside. A party seeking to improve its position must ensure compliance with existing orders.
<span class="news-text_medium">Refusal of summary judgment:</span> The refusal of summary judgment had not removed the basis for the freezing order. In declining to grant summary judgment, the judge had indicated that one of the parties must have acted dishonestly, a matter to be resolved at trial. Both parties retained a reasonably arguable case and the refusal of summary judgment demonstrated only that the defendant's prospects of success were not fanciful. The claimant's good arguable case was sufficient to sustain the freezing order: <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Dos Santos v Unitel SA [2024] EWCA Civ 1109 followed</span>.
<span class="news-text_medium">Costs:</span> Whilst it is generally not appropriate to reserve the costs of a freezing order to the trial judge, the costs of the earlier freezing order hearings would be reserved, given that it might be determined at trial that the claimant had advanced its case dishonestly, a finding which the court might wish to reflect in its costs award (<span class="news-text_italic-underline">Dos Santos</span> distinguished). However, the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of its application to set aside, to be assessed on the indemnity basis, having regard to its breaches and the unsatisfactory manner in which the application had been framed.
