Blockchain Optimization S.A. & Anor v LFE Market Ltd & Ors

Blockchain Optimization S.A. & Anor v LFE Market Ltd & Ors

Defendants failed to comply with two costs orders, provided no sufficient evidence of inability to pay, have substantial assets, and continued to fund litigation. There are no strong reasons for not making an unless order. Public confidence in court enforcement requires compliance. Unless order granted, with time extended to 28 December 2020.

Parties
Claimant: Blockchain Optimization S. A.; Claimant: Petrochemical Logistics Limited; Defendant: LFE Market Limited; Defendant: LFE Group Holdings Limited; Defendant: James (aka Jim) Aylward; Defendant: Benjamin Leigh Hunt; Defendant: White Tiger Global Opportunities Fund; Defendant: White Tiger Asset Management Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Application for Unless Order and Summary Assessment of Costs
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Unless Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Orders Unless Orders Relief From Sanctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Conspiracy Breach of Contract

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

Parties

Blockchain Optimization S. A.

Claimant

Petrochemical Logistics Limited

Claimant

LFE Market Limited

Defendant

LFE Group Holdings Limited

Defendant

James (aka Jim) Aylward

Defendant

Benjamin Leigh Hunt

Defendant

White Tiger Global Opportunities Fund

Defendant

White Tiger Asset Management Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Application for Unless Order and Summary Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the first, second and fourth defendants be debarred from defending the claim for failure to pay outstanding costs orders?
  2. 2 Is an unless order appropriate in the circumstances of repeated breach of costs orders?
  3. 3 Should costs be awarded on an indemnity basis?

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to comply with two costs orders, provided no sufficient evidence of inability to pay, have substantial assets, and continued to fund litigation. There are no strong reasons for not making an unless order. Public confidence in court enforcement requires compliance. Unless order granted, with time extended to 28 December 2020.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Unless by 4 pm on 28 December 2020 the first, second and fourth defendants pay the unpaid costs, their defences are struck out and they are debarred from defending the claim.
  • First, second and fourth defendants to pay claimants' costs of the application on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed at £15,000 by bank transfer to claimants' solicitors by 4 pm on 31 December 2020.