Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors

Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors

It is just to order further security for costs reflecting a reasonable possibility of indemnity costs, set at 75% of incurred and expected costs, as the Claimant's evidence of inability to pay was insufficient and Mr. Deripaska, as a third party funder, is likely able to provide additional security. The risk of stifling the claim is not established, and the counterclaim does not affect the order.

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
02 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Further Security for Costs Before Trial
Outcome
Application granted. Security for costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Assessment, Indemnity Costs, Disclosure, Counterclaim, Non Party Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Costs Assessment Indemnity Costs Disclosure Counterclaim Non Party Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 Application / Application for Further Security for Costs Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the fair and just amount of further security for costs to be ordered against the Claimant?
  2. 2 Is there a reasonable possibility of indemnity costs being ordered?
  3. 3 Will an order for security in excess of £1.1 million stifle the Claimant's claim?

Ratio Decidendi

It is just to order further security for costs reflecting a reasonable possibility of indemnity costs, set at 75% of incurred and expected costs, as the Claimant's evidence of inability to pay was insufficient and Mr. Deripaska, as a third party funder, is likely able to provide additional security. The risk of stifling the claim is not established, and the counterclaim does not affect the order.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Security for costs ordered.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for First and Second Defendants’ costs in the sum of £2,630,826.
  • Claimant to provide security for Third Defendant’s costs in the sum of £584,413.