National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors [2016] EWHC 1991 (Comm) (29 July 2016)

National Bank Trust v Yurov & Ors [2016] EWHC 1991 (Comm) (29 July 2016)

Where a claimant has committed substantial but innocent failures of disclosure in a without notice application for a freezing order, the claimant should bear its own costs of the initial application and may recover only a proportion of its costs of resisting discharge, with the deduction reflecting both the seriousness of the failures and the conduct of the parties.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1991 (Comm)
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 Proceeding (freezing Order) / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs order made: claimant to bear its own costs of the initial freezing order application; defendants to pay 40% of claimant's costs of the discharge application, assessed on the standard basis; no payment on account ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Without Notice Applications, Full and Frank Disclosure, Costs Sanctions
Civil Procedure Banking Law Freezing Orders Without Notice Applications Full and Frank Disclosure Costs Sanctions

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 2 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 Proceeding (freezing Order) / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate costs order where a claimant has failed to disclose material facts in a without notice application for a freezing order, but the order is continued?

Ratio Decidendi

Where a claimant has committed substantial but innocent failures of disclosure in a without notice application for a freezing order, the claimant should bear its own costs of the initial application and may recover only a proportion of its costs of resisting discharge, with the deduction reflecting both the seriousness of the failures and the conduct of the parties.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The bank must bear its own costs of the application to Leggatt J 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.