PJSC NATIONAL BANK TRUST & Anor v BORIS MINTS & Ors

PJSC NATIONAL BANK TRUST & Anor v BORIS MINTS & Ors

Deductions from Respondents' costs are justified for unsatisfactory witness statements and for advancing the Gleeson v Wippell argument, which was disproportionate and unnecessary at first instance. Interim payments are ordered at a level reflecting likely recoverable costs, subject to sanctions licensing.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: PJSC National Bank Trust; Claimant/applicant: PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation; Defendant/respondent: Boris Mints; Defendant/respondent: Dmitry Mints; Defendant/respondent: Alexander Mints; Defendant/respondent: Igor Mints; Defendant/respondent: Vadim Belyaev; Defendant/respondent: Evgeny Dankevich; Defendant/respondent: Mikhail Shishkhanov; Defendant/respondent: MaplesFS Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Costs Ruling / Post Judgment, Ruling on Costs
Outcome
Costs awarded to Respondents with deductions; interim payments ordered; some applications refused.
Legal Topics
Costs, Interim Payments, Proportionality of Costs, Sanctions Compliance
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Interim Payments Proportionality of Costs Sanctions Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJSC National Bank Trust

Claimant/applicant

PJSC Bank Otkritie Financial Corporation

Claimant/applicant

Boris Mints

Defendant/respondent

Dmitry Mints

Defendant/respondent

Alexander Mints

Defendant/respondent

Igor Mints

Defendant/respondent

Vadim Belyaev

Defendant/respondent

Evgeny Dankevich

Defendant/respondent

Mikhail Shishkhanov

Defendant/respondent

MaplesFS Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Costs Ruling / Post Judgment, Ruling on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deductions should be made from Respondents' costs recovery for unsuccessful arguments or unsatisfactory evidence
  2. 2 Appropriate amount for interim payments on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Deductions from Respondents' costs are justified for unsatisfactory witness statements and for advancing the Gleeson v Wippell argument, which was disproportionate and unnecessary at first instance. Interim payments are ordered at a level reflecting likely recoverable costs, subject to sanctions licensing.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Respondents with deductions; interim payments ordered; some applications refused.

Orders

  • D1 awarded 90% of his costs of the applications.
  • D2 and D3 awarded 85% of their costs of the applications.