Verlox International Ltd & Anor v Antoshin & Ors (Re Consequentials) [2022] EWHC 3182 (Comm) (09 December 2022)

Verlox International Ltd & Anor v Antoshin & Ors (Re Consequentials) [2022] EWHC 3182 (Comm) (09 December 2022)

There was no legal, factual, or procedural basis to revise the judgment of 25 October 2022. The claimants' conduct justified indemnity costs from 1 September 2021. Interim payments on account of costs were appropriate at 70% of claimed costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3182 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Verlox International Limited; Claimant: Igor Sychev; Defendant: Igor Antoshin; Defendant: Parmas Corporation; Defendant: Avec Limited; Defendant: PJSC PhosAgro; Defendant: Andrey Girgoryevich Guryev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Post Judgment Hearing on Consequential Matters
Outcome
Applications to revise the judgment and for permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to First and Fourth Defendants; interim payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Amendment of Claim Form, Jurisdiction Challenge, Costs Orders, Permission to Appeal
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Amendment of Claim Form Jurisdiction Challenge Costs Orders Permission to Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Verlox International Limited

Claimant

Igor Sychev

Claimant

Igor Antoshin

Defendant

Parmas Corporation

Defendant

Avec Limited

Defendant

PJSC PhosAgro

Defendant

Andrey Girgoryevich Guryev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Post Judgment Hearing on Consequential Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to revise or reopen the judgment handed down on 25 October 2022
  2. 2 Whether to grant permission to appeal
  3. 3 Whether to award costs and on what basis

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legal, factual, or procedural basis to revise the judgment of 25 October 2022. The claimants' conduct justified indemnity costs from 1 September 2021. Interim payments on account of costs were appropriate at 70% of claimed costs.

Court Disposition

Applications to revise the judgment and for permission to appeal refused; costs awarded to First and Fourth Defendants; interim payments ordered.

Orders

  • No revision of the 25 October 2022 judgment.
  • Permission to appeal refused.