National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors

National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors

Where a claimant has failed to make full and frank disclosure in a without notice application for a freezing order, but the order is continued, the appropriate costs order is for the claimant to bear its own costs of the initial application and for the defendants to pay a reduced proportion (here, 40%) of the claimant’s costs of the discharge application, to mark the failure and deter non-compliance.

Parties
Claimant: National Bank Trust; First Defendant: Mr Ilya Yurov; Second Defendant: Mr Sergey Belyaev; Third Defendant: Mr Nikolay Fetisov; Fourth Defendant: Mrs Nataliya Yurova; Fifth Defendant: Mrs Irina Belyaeva; Sixth Defendant: Mrs Elena Pischulina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Costs Following Freezing Order / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs order: claimant to bear own costs of initial freezing order application; defendants to pay 40% of claimant’s costs of discharge application, assessed on standard basis; no payment on account ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Without Notice Applications, Costs Orders, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Banking Law Freezing Orders Without Notice Applications Costs Orders Disclosure Obligations

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Bank Trust

Claimant

Mr Ilya Yurov

First Defendant

Mr Sergey Belyaev

Second Defendant

Mr Nikolay Fetisov

Third Defendant

Mrs Nataliya Yurova

Fourth Defendant

Mrs Irina Belyaeva

Fifth Defendant

Mrs Elena Pischulina

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Costs Following Freezing Order / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate costs order where a claimant has failed to make full and frank disclosure in a without notice application for a freezing order but the order is continued?
  2. 2 How should the court balance the need for deterrence and sanction for non-disclosure with the outcome of the substantive application?

Ratio Decidendi

Where a claimant has failed to make full and frank disclosure in a without notice application for a freezing order, but the order is continued, the appropriate costs order is for the claimant to bear its own costs of the initial application and for the defendants to pay a reduced proportion (here, 40%) of the claimant’s costs of the discharge application, to mark the failure and deter non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Costs order: claimant to bear own costs of initial freezing order application; defendants to pay 40% of claimant’s costs of discharge application, assessed on standard basis; no payment on account ordered.

Orders

  • The bank must bear its own costs of the application for the freezing order.
  • The defendants must pay 40% of the bank’s costs of the application to discharge the freezing order, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis.