JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors [2018] EWHC 3072 (Comm) (13 November 2018)

JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors [2018] EWHC 3072 (Comm) (13 November 2018)

VTB is not entitled to security for costs under CPR 25.12 because it is not a defendant to a claim for the purposes of the rule. Berenger's discharge application is defensive in nature, does not seek substantive relief against VTB, and is part and parcel of the original proceedings. The application does not have independent vitality and does not convert VTB into a defendant to a new claim. The court must look at the substance of the application, and here Berenger is not in the position of a claimant. There is no jurisdiction to order security for costs in these circumstances.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3072 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: JSC VTB Bank; First Defendant: Pavel Valerjevich Skurikhin; Second Defendant: Pikeville Investments LLP; Third Defendant: Perchwell Holdings LLP; First Respondent: Zeno Alois Meier; Second Respondent: Beat Lerch; Third Respondent: Crown Capital Holdings Limited; Fourth Respondent: The Berenger Foundation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application—judgment on Security for Costs Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Receivership, Equitable Execution, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Trust Beneficiaries, Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Trusts and Equity Insolvency Security for Costs Receivership Equitable Execution Issue Estoppel +4 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC VTB Bank

Claimant

Pavel Valerjevich Skurikhin

First Defendant

Pikeville Investments LLP

Second Defendant

Perchwell Holdings LLP

Third Defendant

Zeno Alois Meier

First Respondent

Beat Lerch

Second Respondent

Crown Capital Holdings Limited

Third Respondent

The Berenger Foundation

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application—judgment on Security for Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether VTB is entitled to security for costs under CPR 25.12 in respect of Berenger's application to discharge the receivership order
  2. 2 Whether VTB is in the position of a 'defendant to a claim' for the purposes of CPR 25.12
  3. 3 Whether Berenger's discharge application constitutes a new claim or is defensive in nature

Ratio Decidendi

VTB is not entitled to security for costs under CPR 25.12 because it is not a defendant to a claim for the purposes of the rule. Berenger's discharge application is defensive in nature, does not seek substantive relief against VTB, and is part and parcel of the original proceedings. The application does not have independent vitality and does not convert VTB into a defendant to a new claim. The court must look at the substance of the application, and here Berenger is not in the position of a claimant. There is no jurisdiction to order security for costs in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • VTB's application for security for costs is refused.