In Iman Said Abdul Aziz Al-Rawas v Pegasus Energy Ltd & 18 Ors – Lawtel 30.10.07 the applicant companies applied for summary judgment against the respondent in respect of their claim to be compensated for losses occasioned by the imposition of freezing and search and seizure orders on them. The orders had been obtained without notice by the respondent in support of litigation in Mauritius, and the respondent had given cross-undertakings in damages. The applicant paid a very large sum into court, which had been raised by a loan. The orders were later set aside and an enquiry into damages ordered. The applicant sought to recover the difference between the interest paid on the loan and the interest earned on the monies paid into court.

The Queen’s Bench court held that there was no doubt that the loan would not have been obtained but for the need to pay money into court. The obligation on the applicant had been to behave reasonably, which was to be judged as at the time and not with the benefit of hindsight. The burden of proof was on the respondent and she had shown nothing, by way of evidence or submission, to support an arguable case that the applicant had failed to act reasonably in mitigating its loss.