JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2011] EWHC 2500 (Comm) (29 July 2011)

Security for costs is just in principle for Mr Solodchenko due to real, albeit small, risk of non-payment by the claimant and lack of effective de facto security; however, security is refused for Mr Ablyazov pending resolution of contempt proceedings due to his alleged breaches of court orders.

Citation: [2011] EWHC 2500 (Comm)
Parties: Claimant/respondent: JSC BTA Bank; Defendant/applicant: Mukhtar Ablyazov; Defendant/applicant: Mr Solodchenko
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 29 July 2011
Procedural Posture: Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome: Application granted in part
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Freezing Orders, Receivership, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Contempt of Court

Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Freezing Orders Receivership Enforcement of Costs Orders Contempt of Court

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant/respondent

Mukhtar Ablyazov

Defendant/applicant

Mr Solodchenko

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether security for costs should be ordered in favour of Mr Ablyazov and Mr Solodchenko against JSC BTA Bank
2 Whether alleged breaches of court orders by Mr Ablyazov preclude an order for security for his costs
3 Whether de facto security exists sufficient to refuse the application

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

Order for security for costs in favour of Mr Solodchenko; quantum to be agreed or determined at further hearing.
No order for security for costs in favour of Mr Ablyazov pending outcome of contempt hearing.