Shell International Trading & Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Tikhonov & Ors
Compound interest at 4.5% with monthly rests is appropriate; indemnity costs are justified due to dishonest defences; permission to appeal and stay pending appeal are refused as the grounds lack merit and new evidence is unsubstantiated.
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Claimant: Shell International Trading & Shipping Company Limited; Claimant: Shell Trading International Limited; Claimant: Shell Trading Russia BV; Defendant: Evegny Tikhonov; Defendant: T Capital Limited; Defendant: T Capital Management Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 July 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Post Judgment Orders
- Outcome
- orders granted as per Shell's draft; permission to appeal and stay pending appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Compound Interest, Indemnity Costs, Permission to Appeal, Stay Pending Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shell International Trading & Shipping Company Limited
Claimant
Shell Trading International Limited
Claimant
Shell Trading Russia BV
Claimant
Evegny Tikhonov
Defendant
T Capital Limited
Defendant
T Capital Management Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 appropriate rate and calculation of compound interest
- 2 award of indemnity costs
- 3 disclosure of hearsay statements
Ratio Decidendi
Compound interest at 4.5% with monthly rests is appropriate; indemnity costs are justified due to dishonest defences; permission to appeal and stay pending appeal are refused as the grounds lack merit and new evidence is unsubstantiated.
Court Disposition
orders granted as per Shell's draft; permission to appeal and stay pending appeal refused
Orders
- Compound interest at 4.5% per annum with monthly rests from dates of receipt to 23 June 2010; Shell may opt for yearly rests if monthly calculation is complex.
- Indemnity costs awarded; payment on account of £750,000.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment