Durnont Enterprises v Fazita Investment Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1224 (Ch) (18 May 2026)

Durnont Enterprises v Fazita Investment Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1224 (Ch) (18 May 2026)

Defendants' conduct in the jurisdiction challenge was unreasonable to a high degree, justifying indemnity costs and joint and several liability. The claimant's failure to make full and frank disclosure warranted a penal reduction of recoverable costs. Interim payment of costs is appropriate but should be paid into court and stayed pending permission to appeal. Security for costs should be released subject to a partial stay. Costs of the security for costs application are payable by the claimant on the standard basis. Permission to appeal is refused as no arguable grounds are disclosed.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1224 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Durnont Enterprises; First Defendant: Fazita Investment Limited and others; Second Defendant: Wladyslaw Jaroszewicz; Third Defendant: Michael Carl Jaroszewicz; Fourth Defendant: M-Jwk-Management Spólka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia; 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 (company Law, Fraud) / Consequentials Hearing After Dismissal of Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Defendants' applications for permission to appeal refused. Claimant awarded indemnity costs of the jurisdiction challenge, subject to a 33% reduction for disclosure breach. Defendants jointly and severally liable for costs. Interim payment of £1.6 million ordered, to be paid into court and stayed pending permission...
Legal Topics
Derivative Claims, Jurisdiction Challenge, Costs (indemnity/standard), Security for Costs, Permission to Appeal, Full and Frank Disclosure
Company Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Fraud Derivative Claims Jurisdiction Challenge Costs (indemnity/standard) Security for Costs +2 more

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

Parties

Durnont Enterprises

Claimant

Fazita Investment Limited and others

First Defendant

Wladyslaw Jaroszewicz

Second Defendant

Michael Carl Jaroszewicz

Third Defendant

M-Jwk-Management Spólka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia

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 (company Law, Fraud) / Consequentials Hearing After Dismissal of Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity or standard basis
  2. 2 Whether defendants are jointly and severally liable for costs
  3. 3 Whether interim payment of costs should be stayed pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants' conduct in the jurisdiction challenge was unreasonable to a high degree, justifying indemnity costs and joint and several liability. The claimant's failure to make full and frank disclosure warranted a penal reduction of recoverable costs. Interim payment of costs is appropriate but should be paid into court and stayed pending permission to appeal. Security for costs should be released subject to a partial stay. Costs of the security for costs application are payable by the claimant on the standard basis. Permission to appeal is refused as no arguable grounds are disclosed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for permission to appeal refused. Claimant awarded indemnity costs of the jurisdiction challenge, subject to a 33% reduction for disclosure breach. Defendants jointly and severally liable for costs. Interim payment of £1.6 million ordered, to be paid into court and stayed pending permission...

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimant's costs of jurisdiction challenge on indemnity basis, jointly and severally, subject to 33% reduction for disclosure breach.
  • Defendants to make interim payment of £1.6 million into court, stayed pending permission to appeal.