Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Ors

Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Ors

The judge was entitled to conclude, based on his knowledge of the case and the assistance available to the appellants, that a fair trial was possible without advance payment of costs. The circumstances did not justify an exceptional order for costs in advance, and the judge's decision to refuse an adjournment and costs order was not plainly wrong or unfair.

Parties
Claimant: Bank St Petersburg PJSC; Defendant/appellant: Vitaly Arkhangelsky; Defendant/appellant: Julia Arkhangelsky; Claimant: Mr Savelyev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs and Adjournment)
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Costs in Advance, Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR, Self Representation, Exceptional Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Human Rights Costs in Advance Fair Trial Article 6 ECHR Self Representation Exceptional Costs Orders

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

Parties

Bank St Petersburg PJSC

Claimant

Vitaly Arkhangelsky

Defendant/appellant

Julia Arkhangelsky

Defendant/appellant

Mr Savelyev

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (costs and Adjournment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to order advance payment of costs for legal representation denied a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing an adjournment
  3. 3 Whether the judge properly exercised discretion under CPR 44.2 to award costs in advance

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to conclude, based on his knowledge of the case and the assistance available to the appellants, that a fair trial was possible without advance payment of costs. The circumstances did not justify an exceptional order for costs in advance, and the judge's decision to refuse an adjournment and costs order was not plainly wrong or unfair.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused