Recovery Partners GB Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 95 (Comm) (24 January 2018)

Recovery Partners GB Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 95 (Comm) (24 January 2018)

Although the Deed of Indemnity and ATE policy would provide adequate security for costs, they are not as attractive as a solicitor's undertaking backed by cash. No compelling reason or hardship was shown to justify releasing the claimants' solicitors from their undertakings. The burden lies on the party seeking release, and in the absence of strong justification, the application must be dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 95 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Recovery Partners GB Ltd; Claimant: Revoker LLP; Defendant: Irakli Rukhadze; Defendant: Igor Alexeev; Defendant: Benjamin Marson; Defendant: Hunnewell Partners (UK) LLP; Defendant: Hunnewell Partners (BVI) Ltd; Defendant: Park Street (GP) Ltd; Defendant: Park Street (BR) Ltd; Defendant: Park Street (GS) Ltd; Defendant: Park Street (L) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application to Release Undertakings for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Undertakings, After the Event Insurance, Deed of Indemnity, Discretion to Release Undertakings
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Undertakings After the Event Insurance Deed of Indemnity Discretion to Release Undertakings

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Recovery Partners GB Ltd

Claimant

Revoker LLP

Claimant

Irakli Rukhadze

Defendant

Igor Alexeev

Defendant

Benjamin Marson

Defendant

Hunnewell Partners (UK) LLP

Defendant

Hunnewell Partners (BVI) Ltd

Defendant

Park Street (GP) Ltd

Defendant

Park Street (BR) Ltd

Defendant

Park Street (GS) Ltd

Defendant

Park Street (L) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application to Release Undertakings for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Deed of Indemnity and ATE insurance provide adequate security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the court should release claimants' solicitors from undertakings given in lieu of security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Deed of Indemnity and ATE policy would provide adequate security for costs, they are not as attractive as a solicitor's undertaking backed by cash. No compelling reason or hardship was shown to justify releasing the claimants' solicitors from their undertakings. The burden lies on the party seeking release, and in the absence of strong justification, the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' solicitors not released from undertakings for security for costs