The Financial Conduct Authority v Papadimitrakopoulos & Anor [2022] EWHC 3048 (Ch) (17 November 2022)

The Financial Conduct Authority v Papadimitrakopoulos & Anor [2022] EWHC 3048 (Ch) (17 November 2022)

The FCA's conduct in making collateral use of MLA Material without consent amounted to an abuse of process deserving of disapproval, justifying a departure from the general rule on costs. Both Defendants were entitled to their costs of the application, but indemnity costs were not warranted as the FCA had not acted improperly or unreasonably, only mistakenly.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3048 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Financial Conduct Authority; First Defendant: Konstantinos Papadimitrakopoulos; Second Defendant: Dimitris Gryparis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Consequentials Hearing Following Strike Out Application
Outcome
Application for costs by Defendants granted in part.
Legal Topics
Costs, Abuse of Process, Mutual Legal Assistance, Market Abuse
Civil Procedure Financial Regulation Costs Abuse of Process Mutual Legal Assistance Market Abuse

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Conduct Authority

Claimant

Konstantinos Papadimitrakopoulos

First Defendant

Dimitris Gryparis

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Consequentials Hearing Following Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the FCA should pay the Defendants' costs following findings of collateral use of MLA Material
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on the indemnity basis
  3. 3 Whether the Second Defendant should recover his costs

Ratio Decidendi

The FCA's conduct in making collateral use of MLA Material without consent amounted to an abuse of process deserving of disapproval, justifying a departure from the general rule on costs. Both Defendants were entitled to their costs of the application, but indemnity costs were not warranted as the FCA had not acted improperly or unreasonably, only mistakenly.

Court Disposition

Application for costs by Defendants granted in part.

Orders

  • FCA to pay First Defendant's costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis.
  • FCA to pay Second Defendant's costs of the application, summarily assessed at £70,000, payable within 14 days.