Danilina v Chernukhin & Anor

Danilina v Chernukhin & Anor

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 set at £700,000 for the First and Second Defendants and £90,000 for the Third Defendant.

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
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 Arbitration 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 16 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are entitled to security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(a) and/or (f)
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is a nominal claimant under CPR 25.13(2)(f)
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of obstacles or additional burdens in enforcing an English costs order in Russia

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 set at £700,000 for the First and Second Defendants and £90,000 for the Third Defendant.

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