Costs awarded against financial company that sought orders for attachment and committal

Costs of legal proceedings – unsuccessful fund argue that costs should be costs in the cause or reserved – in the alternative the fund sought a stay – arguments raised by appellants were not accepted by the court – statutory context – costs follow the event - possible justly to adjudicate – other factors – entirely successful - judicial discretion and the conduct of the parties is of particular importance - No cogent basis has been identified by the fund for the proposition that the costs of the attachment and committal applications be made costs in the cause - this court is best placed to address the issue of the costs of this appeal against the orders in the contempt motion including the order for attachment - appellants have been entirely successful and have dislodged orders that invoked the coercive jurisdiction of the High Court against them and each of them and their person - no principled or clear basis was articulated for claim for costs against the appellants’ solicitor - appellants are entitled to their costs in respect of the said appeals – no basis for a stay - stay is not appropriate in circumstances where the matter at issue in the within proceedings concerned the personal liberty of the individuals and the invocation erroneously brought on the part of the fund of the coercive jurisdiction of the High Court as against the persons of each of the individual appellants - doubt as to whether they intend to prosecute the within proceedings expeditiously to an ultimate determination - issues arising in this appeal are distinct and discrete from the substantive issues as may fall to be determined at any plenary hearing - not in the public interest that the coercive and punitive powers arising in the exercise of the jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court should be lightly invoked, nor should sight be lost of the fact that a committal for contempt is primarily coercive – stay refused –