JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors

JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors

The court found no sufficient reason to reserve or defer the costs of the security application or to stay execution. The security application was a discrete matter, costs should follow the event, and there were no special circumstances justifying a stay or delay. Berenger was not abusing process and was not in the...

Source-derived case information.

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
21 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Security for Costs Application
Outcome
Costs awarded to the Fourth Respondent (Berenger Foundation)
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Stay of Execution, Case Management
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Costs Orders Stay of Execution Case Management

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Commercial / Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Security for Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of the security for costs application should be awarded immediately or reserved/deferred
  2. 2 Whether execution of the costs order should be stayed or payment deferred
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no sufficient reason to reserve or defer the costs of the security application or to stay execution. The security application was a discrete matter, costs should follow the event, and there were no special circumstances justifying a stay or delay. Berenger was not abusing process and was not in the position of a claimant. The amount of costs claimed by Berenger was reduced to £31,000 as a reasonable assessment.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the Fourth Respondent (Berenger Foundation)

Orders

  • Berenger Foundation awarded £31,000 in costs of the security application, to be paid within 21 days.