Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov & Ors

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov & Ors

The defendants (other than the seventh defendant) are entitled to half of their respective costs of the discharge applications and related hearings, with the other half to be borne by themselves. Tadaz should bear its own costs. The extent of costs that would have been incurred in any event is to be determined by the costs judge. The basis of assessment (standard or indemnity) is reserved to the trial judge. Interim payments on account of costs are ordered in favour of the defendants.

Parties
Claimant: Tajik Aluminium Plant; 1st Defendant: Abdukadir Ganievich Ermatov; 2nd Defendant: Ansol Limited; 3rd Defendant: Avaz Saidovich Nazarov; 4th Defendant: Ashton Investments Limited; 5th Defendant: Alexander Vitalyevich Shushko; 6th Defendant: Anna Osadchaya; 7th Defendant: Cherzod Abdoukadirovich Ermatov; 8th Defendant: Ansol Resources Limited; 9th Defendant: Ansol Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Costs Ruling After Discharge of Interim Freezing and Search Orders
Outcome
Defendants awarded 50% of their costs of the discharge applications; Tadaz to pay interim sums on account; basis of assessment reserved to trial judge.
Legal Topics
Costs, Freezing Orders, Search Orders, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Freezing Orders Search Orders Interim Relief

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tajik Aluminium Plant

Claimant

Abdukadir Ganievich Ermatov

1st Defendant

Ansol Limited

2nd Defendant

Avaz Saidovich Nazarov

3rd Defendant

Ashton Investments Limited

4th Defendant

Alexander Vitalyevich Shushko

5th Defendant

Anna Osadchaya

6th Defendant

Cherzod Abdoukadirovich Ermatov

7th Defendant

Ansol Resources Limited

8th Defendant

Ansol Capital Limited

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Costs Ruling After Discharge of Interim Freezing and Search Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the applications to discharge freezing and search orders?
  2. 2 Should costs be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis?
  3. 3 Should there be interim payments on account of costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants (other than the seventh defendant) are entitled to half of their respective costs of the discharge applications and related hearings, with the other half to be borne by themselves. Tadaz should bear its own costs. The extent of costs that would have been incurred in any event is to be determined by the costs judge. The basis of assessment (standard or indemnity) is reserved to the trial judge. Interim payments on account of costs are ordered in favour of the defendants.

Court Disposition

Defendants awarded 50% of their costs of the discharge applications; Tadaz to pay interim sums on account; basis of assessment reserved to trial judge.

Orders

  • Tadaz to pay Mr Ermatov £35,000 on account of his recoverable costs.
  • Tadaz to pay the other defendants £200,000 on account of their recoverable costs.