Mountain Ash Portfolio Ltd v Vasilyev [2022] EWHC 1867 (Comm) (21 July 2022)

Mountain Ash Portfolio Ltd v Vasilyev [2022] EWHC 1867 (Comm) (21 July 2022)

The threshold for ordering security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(c) was met as the Claimant is insolvent. None of the Claimant's grounds of opposition—merits, trustee status, or stifling—were sufficient to displace the court's discretion to order security. The merits did not reach the high threshold to preclude...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1867 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Mountain Ash Portfolio Limited (As Trustee of CF Structure Products BV); Defendant: Boris Tsibenovich Vasilyev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Commercial Proceedings / Post Set Aside of Default Judgment; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Trusteeship, Insolvency, Summary Judgment, Default Judgment, Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Trusteeship Insolvency Summary Judgment Default Judgment Costs

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mountain Ash Portfolio Limited (As Trustee of CF Structure Products BV)

Claimant

Boris Tsibenovich Vasilyev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Commercial Proceedings / Post Set Aside of Default Judgment; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a corporate trustee claimant
  2. 2 Whether the merits of the claim preclude an order for security
  3. 3 Whether an order for security would stifle the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold for ordering security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(c) was met as the Claimant is insolvent. None of the Claimant's grounds of opposition—merits, trustee status, or stifling—were sufficient to displace the court's discretion to order security. The merits did not reach the high threshold to preclude security; being a trustee did not exempt the Claimant; and the evidence did not show the claim would be stifled. The amount sought was excessive, but a reduced sum of £1.1 million was reasonable.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for Defendant's costs in the sum of £1,100,000
  • Parties to attempt to agree the terms of the order and consequential matters; failing agreement, the court will resolve them