Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & Ors v Privalov & Ors (Costs)

Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & Ors v Privalov & Ors (Costs)

Although the defendants were overall successful and entitled to costs, a significant reduction is warranted due to their failure on major discrete issues that accounted for a substantial proportion of costs. Claimants to pay 50% of defendants’ costs (except reserved costs), with an interim payment ordered. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success. Stay of execution is refused as security is already available via frozen funds in Switzerland.

Parties
Claimants: Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation (now known as SCF Tankers Limited) & Others; Defendants: Yuri Privalov & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Action / Ruling on Costs After Judgment and Applications
Outcome
Claimants to pay 50% of defendants’ costs (except reserved costs); interim payment ordered; permission to appeal refused; stay of execution refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Damages Inquiry, Freezing Orders, Permission to Appeal, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Damages Inquiry Freezing Orders Permission to Appeal Stay of Execution

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation (now known as SCF Tankers Limited) & Others

Claimants

Yuri Privalov & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Action / Ruling on Costs After Judgment and Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the inquiry as to damages and related applications?
  2. 2 Should there be a departure from the general rule on costs?
  3. 3 Is an interim payment on account of costs appropriate?

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendants were overall successful and entitled to costs, a significant reduction is warranted due to their failure on major discrete issues that accounted for a substantial proportion of costs. Claimants to pay 50% of defendants’ costs (except reserved costs), with an interim payment ordered. Permission to appeal is refused as there is no real prospect of success. Stay of execution is refused as security is already available via frozen funds in Switzerland.

Court Disposition

Claimants to pay 50% of defendants’ costs (except reserved costs); interim payment ordered; permission to appeal refused; stay of execution refused.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay 50% of defendants’ costs, assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
  • Defendants entitled to various reserved costs, recoverable without discount.