Tchenguiz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office & Ors

Tchenguiz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office & Ors

There is no general principle that indemnity costs will be awarded against applicants under CPR Part 31.22; the judge had ample grounds for awarding indemnity costs in this particular case due to the extraneous nature of the application and the significant effort required from the respondent.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Tchenguiz; Respondent/defendant: Director of the Serious Fraud Office; Intervening Party: HM Procureur for Guernsey; Intervening Party: Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Main Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, CPR Part 31.22, CPR Part 44.3
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs CPR Part 31.22 CPR Part 44.3

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Tchenguiz

Appellant

Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Respondent/defendant

HM Procureur for Guernsey

Intervening Party

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees S.A.

Intervening Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment Following Main Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against an applicant under CPR Part 31.22
  2. 2 Whether a general principle exists for indemnity costs in such applications

Ratio Decidendi

There is no general principle that indemnity costs will be awarded against applicants under CPR Part 31.22; the judge had ample grounds for awarding indemnity costs in this particular case due to the extraneous nature of the application and the significant effort required from the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Indemnity costs order against Robert Tchenguiz upheld