VTB Bank (PJSC) v Firtash (Costs) [2021] EWHC 1634 (Comm) (18 June 2021)

VTB Bank (PJSC) v Firtash (Costs) [2021] EWHC 1634 (Comm) (18 June 2021)

The Defendant was in substance the successful party following the discharge of the Freezing Order, particularly due to the Claimant's refusal to provide additional fortification as ordered. The Claimant's conduct, including failure to clarify its position and lack of cooperation, justified awarding the Defendant a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1634 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: VTB Bank (PJSC); Defendant: Mr Dmytro Firtash
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Costs Judgment Following Application to Vary/discharge Freezing Order / Post Application, Costs Determination After Discharge of Freezing Order
Outcome
Claimant ordered to pay Defendant's costs as specified; Defendant awarded indemnity costs for certain periods; payment on account ordered for Freezing Order proceedings.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Costs Orders, Fortification of Undertakings, Summary Assessment of Costs, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Costs Orders Fortification of Undertakings Summary Assessment of Costs Indemnity Costs

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

Parties

VTB Bank (PJSC)

Claimant

Mr Dmytro Firtash

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Costs Judgment Following Application to Vary/discharge Freezing Order / Post Application, Costs Determination After Discharge of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order following discharge of Freezing Order
  2. 2 Entitlement to indemnity costs for period after April Hearing
  3. 3 Assessment of reasonable and proportionate costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was in substance the successful party following the discharge of the Freezing Order, particularly due to the Claimant's refusal to provide additional fortification as ordered. The Claimant's conduct, including failure to clarify its position and lack of cooperation, justified awarding the Defendant a substantial proportion of its costs, including indemnity costs for the period after the April Hearing. The court summarily assessed reasonable and proportionate costs for each period and ordered a payment on account for the Freezing Order proceedings.

Court Disposition

Claimant ordered to pay Defendant's costs as specified; Defendant awarded indemnity costs for certain periods; payment on account ordered for Freezing Order proceedings.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant £43,000 for costs up to 22 February 2021 within 14 days.
  • Claimant to pay 70% of Defendant's costs from 23 February 2021 to 23 April 2021, summarily assessed at £130,000 (i.e. £91,000).