JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors

JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors

VTB is not a defendant to a claim for CPR 25.12 purposes; Berenger's discharge application is defensive and lacks independent vitality, and does not entitle VTB to security for costs. The court's inherent jurisdiction or CPR 3.1 powers do not justify security for costs absent clear abuse of process or want of good faith, which is not established on the evidence.

Parties
Claimant: JSC VTB Bank; Defendant: Pavel Valerjevich Skurikhin; Defendant: Pikeville Investments LLP; Defendant: Perchwell Holdings LLP; Respondent: Zeno Alois Meier; Respondent: Beat Lerch; Respondent: Crown Capital Holdings Limited; Respondent: The Berenger Foundation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Security for Costs Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Receivership, Equitable Execution, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Receivership Equitable Execution Abuse of Process Res Judicata

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC VTB Bank

Claimant

Pavel Valerjevich Skurikhin

Defendant

Pikeville Investments LLP

Defendant

Perchwell Holdings LLP

Defendant

Zeno Alois Meier

Respondent

Beat Lerch

Respondent

Crown Capital Holdings Limited

Respondent

The Berenger Foundation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Security for Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether VTB is a defendant to a claim for purposes of CPR 25.12
  2. 2 Whether Berenger's discharge application constitutes a claim entitling VTB to security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction or CPR 3.1 powers to order security for costs in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

VTB is not a defendant to a claim for CPR 25.12 purposes; Berenger's discharge application is defensive and lacks independent vitality, and does not entitle VTB to security for costs. The court's inherent jurisdiction or CPR 3.1 powers do not justify security for costs absent clear abuse of process or want of good faith, which is not established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed