Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov & Ors [2006] EWHC 8 (Ch) (11 January 2006)

Tajik Aluminium Plant v Ermatov & Ors [2006] EWHC 8 (Ch) (11 January 2006)

The defendants were substantially successful in their applications to discharge the freezing and search orders. The applications constituted a discrete stage in the proceedings, and there was no sufficient reason to reserve costs to the trial. However, given some overlap with issues for trial and the fact that the defendants did not succeed on all points, the appropriate order was that the defendants recover 50% of their costs of the discharge applications, with the remainder to be borne by themselves. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis, with the question of indemnity costs reserved to the trial judge. Interim payments on account of costs were ordered.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 8 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Tajik Aluminium Plant; Defendant: Abdukadir Ganievich Ermatov; Defendant: Ansol Limited; Defendant: Avaz Saidovich Nazarov; Defendant: Ashton Investments Limited; Defendant: Alexander Vitalyevich Shushko; Defendant: Anna Osadchaya; Defendant: Cherzod Abdoukadirovich Ermatov; Defendant: Ansol Resources Limited; Defendant: Ansol Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Costs Judgment Following Interim Applications to Discharge Freezing and Search Orders
Outcome
Defendants awarded 50% of their costs of the discharge applications; claimant to bear its own costs; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Search Orders, Costs, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Search Orders Costs Interim Relief

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tajik Aluminium Plant

Claimant

Abdukadir Ganievich Ermatov

Defendant

Ansol Limited

Defendant

Avaz Saidovich Nazarov

Defendant

Ashton Investments Limited

Defendant

Alexander Vitalyevich Shushko

Defendant

Anna Osadchaya

Defendant

Cherzod Abdoukadirovich Ermatov

Defendant

Ansol Resources Limited

Defendant

Ansol Capital Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Costs Judgment Following Interim Applications to Discharge Freezing and Search Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should pay the defendants' costs of the applications to discharge freezing and search orders
  2. 2 Whether costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis
  3. 3 Whether interim payments on account of costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were substantially successful in their applications to discharge the freezing and search orders. The applications constituted a discrete stage in the proceedings, and there was no sufficient reason to reserve costs to the trial. However, given some overlap with issues for trial and the fact that the defendants did not succeed on all points, the appropriate order was that the defendants recover 50% of their costs of the discharge applications, with the remainder to be borne by themselves. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis, with the question of indemnity costs reserved to the trial judge. Interim payments on account of costs were ordered.

Court Disposition

Defendants awarded 50% of their costs of the discharge applications; claimant to bear its own costs; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • Tadaz to pay Mr Ermatov £35,000 on account of his recoverable costs of the applications.
  • Tadaz to pay the other defendants £200,000 on account of their recoverable costs.