DailyGobble Inc v Amin Jain & Ors

DailyGobble Inc v Amin Jain & Ors

The Applicant's failure to maintain its corporate status was the root cause of the failed examination and resulting costs; the Respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the Applicant should bear the costs of both applications and the wasted costs of the failed examination, but not on the indemnity basis as the conduct was not wholly out of the norm.

Parties
Applicant / Plaintiff in US Proceedings: Dailygobble Inc; Defendant in US Proceedings: Amin Jain; Defendant in US Proceedings: Alliance Group Ventures LLC; Defendant in US Proceedings: Chirag Patil; Defendant in US Proceedings: Does 1-100; Respondent / Witness: Anshu Jain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Application Under CPR 34.17 for Orders Under the Evidence (proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and the Hague Convention / Costs Determination Following Resolution of Applications for Stay and to Compel Attendance
Outcome
Applications resolved by agreement on substantive matters; costs determined by the court.
Legal Topics
Taking of Evidence Abroad, Costs Orders, Enforcement of Foreign Requests, Witness Examination, Comity
Civil Procedure International Judicial Assistance Taking of Evidence Abroad Costs Orders Enforcement of Foreign Requests Witness Examination Comity

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

Parties

Dailygobble Inc

Applicant / Plaintiff in US Proceedings

Amin Jain

Defendant in US Proceedings

Alliance Group Ventures LLC

Defendant in US Proceedings

Chirag Patil

Defendant in US Proceedings

Does 1-100

Defendant in US Proceedings

Anshu Jain

Respondent / Witness

Procedural Posture

Application Under CPR 34.17 for Orders Under the Evidence (proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and the Hague Convention / Costs Determination Following Resolution of Applications for Stay and to Compel Attendance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant or Respondent should bear the costs of applications relating to the examination of a witness under a Letter of Request
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's conduct justified indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's non-attendance justified a coercive order or adverse costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's failure to maintain its corporate status was the root cause of the failed examination and resulting costs; the Respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the Applicant should bear the costs of both applications and the wasted costs of the failed examination, but not on the indemnity basis as the conduct was not wholly out of the norm.

Court Disposition

Applications resolved by agreement on substantive matters; costs determined by the court.

Orders

  • The Applicant shall pay the costs of the 34.10 Application and the Stay Application on the standard basis.
  • The Applicant shall bear the wasted costs of the Examiner, Videographer, and Stenographer.