Hniazdzilau v Vajgel & Ors [2015] EWHC 1582 (Ch) (11 May 2015)

Hniazdzilau v Vajgel & Ors [2015] EWHC 1582 (Ch) (11 May 2015)

The appeal on security for costs is dismissed because, despite errors in the Master's reasoning on the Crabtree principle and the Dumrul undertaking, the refusal of security is upheld on the ground of D3's delay. The appeal against the grant of default judgment for costs and detailed assessment is also dismissed as the orders were appropriate given D1's default and the procedural developments.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1582 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Aliaksandr Hniazdzilau; First Defendant: Zolt Adam Vajgel; Second Defendant: King Howard Cordero Henriques; Third Defendant/appellant: Dmitriy Bronovets
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Appeal From Master's Order on Security for Costs and Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's order upheld.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Default Judgment, Beneficial Ownership of Shares, Joinder of Parties, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Trusts Law Security for Costs Default Judgment Beneficial Ownership of Shares Joinder of Parties Costs Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aliaksandr Hniazdzilau

Claimant

Zolt Adam Vajgel

First Defendant

King Howard Cordero Henriques

Second Defendant

Dmitriy Bronovets

Third Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Appeal From Master's Order on Security for Costs and Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in refusing security for costs to D3
  2. 2 Whether the Master was correct to grant default judgment for costs against D1 and order detailed assessment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal on security for costs is dismissed because, despite errors in the Master's reasoning on the Crabtree principle and the Dumrul undertaking, the refusal of security is upheld on the ground of D3's delay. The appeal against the grant of default judgment for costs and detailed assessment is also dismissed as the orders were appropriate given D1's default and the procedural developments.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's order upheld.

Orders

  • Refusal of security for costs to D3 stands.
  • Default judgment for costs against D1 stands.