Recovery Partners GB Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors

Recovery Partners GB Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors

The claimants failed to demonstrate that it was appropriate to release their solicitors from the undertakings. Although the Deed of Indemnity and ATE policy would provide adequate security for costs, they are not as attractive as a cash-backed solicitors’ undertaking. The only change in circumstance is the claimants’ preference to use the cash, and no hardship or prejudice was shown. The burden lies on the party seeking release, and the factors weighed against granting the application.

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 Litigation / Interlocutory Application—application to Be Released From Solicitors’ 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 3 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 Litigation / Interlocutory Application—application to Be Released From Solicitors’ Undertakings for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate that it was appropriate to release their solicitors from the undertakings. Although the Deed of Indemnity and ATE policy would provide adequate security for costs, they are not as attractive as a cash-backed solicitors’ undertaking. The only change in circumstance is the claimants’ preference to use the cash, and no hardship or prejudice was shown. The burden lies on the party seeking release, and the factors weighed against granting the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The claimants’ solicitors are not released from their undertakings for security for costs.