Danilina v Chernukhin & Anor [2018] EWHC 39 (Comm) (19 January 2018)

Danilina v Chernukhin & Anor [2018] EWHC 39 (Comm) (19 January 2018)

There is a real, though not high, risk of obstacles and additional costs in enforcing an English costs order in Russia, justifying a substantial but not full security for costs order under CPR 25.13(2)(a). The claimant is not a nominal claimant as she has a significant personal interest in the outcome. Security is ordered in amounts reflecting the identified risks, not the full costs claimed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 39 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Lolita Vladimirovna Danilina; First Defendant: Vladimir Anatolevich Chernukhin; Second Defendant: Navigator Equities Limited; Third Defendant: Vadim Kargin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (security for Costs Application) / Interlocutory (application for Security for Costs Before Trial)
Outcome
Applications for security for costs granted in part under CPR 25.13(2)(a); refused under CPR 25.13(2)(f).
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Nominal Claimant, Jurisdiction, Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Nominal Claimant Jurisdiction Costs

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lolita Vladimirovna Danilina

Claimant

Vladimir Anatolevich Chernukhin

First Defendant

Navigator Equities Limited

Second Defendant

Vadim Kargin

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (security for Costs Application) / Interlocutory (application for Security for Costs Before Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a claimant resident outside the jurisdiction under CPR 25.13(2)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is a nominal claimant under CPR 25.13(2)(f)
  3. 3 Quantum of security for costs to be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real, though not high, risk of obstacles and additional costs in enforcing an English costs order in Russia, justifying a substantial but not full security for costs order under CPR 25.13(2)(a). The claimant is not a nominal claimant as she has a significant personal interest in the outcome. Security is ordered in amounts reflecting the identified risks, not the full costs claimed.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs granted in part under CPR 25.13(2)(a); refused under CPR 25.13(2)(f).

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the amount of £700,000 in favour of the First and Second Defendants.
  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the amount of £90,000 in favour of the Third Defendant.