Commercial Court dismisses bank’s costs challenge following Debenhams Ottaway win

Debenhams Ottaway has successfully defended clients in a major Commercial Court costs dispute arising from long-running High Court proceedings brought by Invest Bank P.S.C.

The bank had sued multiple defendants, including our clients, in connection with attempts to enforce overseas judgment debts through complex secondary claims against assets in England. Those secondary claims ultimately failed at trial in July 2024.

Despite losing at trial (Invest Bank v El Husseini) the bank later applied to reopen and overturn earlier interim costs orders made in 2022. Those orders had directed that certain interlocutory costs should be “costs in the case” – meaning they would follow the final outcome. The bank argued that subsequent appeal decisions meant the defendants should now pay a significant share of its earlier legal costs instead.

The court’s decision

In a detailed judgment handed down on 25 November 2025, the Commercial Court firmly rejected the bank’s application in full.

The court found that:

• The earlier interlocutory phase of the case was a genuinely “mixed” outcome.
• Even considering later appeal decisions, it would be unfair and unjust to make our clients pay any part of the bank’s costs.
• The original “costs in the case” orders were correct and should remain unchanged.
• As the defendants ultimately won at trial, those costs properly fall against the bank.

The court also dismissed the bank’s attempt to revisit and claw back payments it had already been ordered to make following the trial.

Indemnity costs awarded against the bank

In a significant further ruling, the court ordered that key parts of our clients’ costs of resisting the bank’s failed application should be assessed on the indemnity basis – a more severe costs sanction.

This followed serious criticism of the bank for making and then abandoning unsupported allegations of misleading the court, as well as threatening wasted costs applications against legal representatives.

The court also recognised the defendants’ reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute without further litigation.

A strong result for our clients

This judgment represents a complete victory for our clients on the costs dispute and brings an important chapter of this litigation to a close. It confirms that:

• The bank bears responsibility for the consequences of pursuing weak and overextended claims.
• Parties should not expect to shift costs risk after the event by re-arguing interim decisions.
• Serious allegations made without proper foundation will attract firm judicial criticism and financial consequences.

Our clients were represented by Niranjan Venkatesan and Constantine Fraser of One Essex Court, instructed by Debenhams Ottaway.