Durnont Enterprises v Fazita Investment Limited & Ors

Durnont Enterprises v Fazita Investment Limited & Ors

Defendants acted with a united front and common interest, justifying joint and several liability for costs. Their 'kitchen sink' approach was unreasonable to a high degree, warranting indemnity costs. However, claimant's failure to make full and frank disclosure regarding expert independence merits a penal reduction of 33% of costs for the relevant application. Interim payment of 65% of claimed costs is appropriate, but payment is stayed pending application for permission to appeal, conditional on payment into court. 50% of remaining security for costs is to be released, with the rest stayed pending appeal. Claimant to pay defendants' costs of the security for costs application on the...

Parties
Claimant: Durnont Enterprises; First Defendant: Fazita Investment Limited and others; Second Defendant: Władysław Jaroszewicz; Third Defendant: Michael Carl Jaroszewicz; Fourth Defendant: M-Jwk-Management Spółka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnościa; Fifth Defendant: Anna Bandurska; Sixth Defendant: Jan Czeremcha; Seventh Defendant: Maciej De Makay; Eighth Defendant: Bnp Paribas Bank Polska S. A.; Ninth Defendant: Polish Real Estate Investment Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim (insolvency and Companies List) / Consequentials Hearing After Dismissal of Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Defendants' applications for permission to appeal refused; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Jurisdiction Challenge, Costs (indemnity/standard), Security for Costs, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Derivative Actions Jurisdiction Challenge Costs (indemnity/standard) Security for Costs Permission to Appeal

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Durnont Enterprises

Claimant

Fazita Investment Limited and others

First Defendant

Władysław Jaroszewicz

Second Defendant

Michael Carl Jaroszewicz

Third Defendant

M-Jwk-Management Spółka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnościa

Fourth Defendant

Anna Bandurska

Fifth Defendant

Jan Czeremcha

Sixth Defendant

Maciej De Makay

Seventh Defendant

Bnp Paribas Bank Polska S. A.

Eighth Defendant

Polish Real Estate Investment Limited

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim (insolvency and Companies List) / Consequentials Hearing After Dismissal of Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be joint and several among defendants
  2. 2 Whether costs should be assessed on indemnity or standard basis
  3. 3 Whether there should be a penal reduction for claimant's failure of full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants acted with a united front and common interest, justifying joint and several liability for costs. Their 'kitchen sink' approach was unreasonable to a high degree, warranting indemnity costs. However, claimant's failure to make full and frank disclosure regarding expert independence merits a penal reduction of 33% of costs for the relevant application. Interim payment of 65% of claimed costs is appropriate, but payment is stayed pending application for permission to appeal, conditional on payment into court. 50% of remaining security for costs is to be released, with the rest stayed pending appeal. Claimant to pay defendants' costs of the security for costs application on the...

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for permission to appeal refused; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and severally liable for claimant's costs of jurisdiction challenge, assessed on indemnity basis.
  • Claimant's recoverable costs for the Deputy Judge application reduced by 33% as penalty for disclosure failure.