JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko

JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko

Given the apparent substantial compliance with the disclosure order, the significant personal expense incurred by Mr Kythreotis, his admission of contempt, and the absence of specific prejudice to the claimant, a custodial sentence is not justified. The costs incurred and the order to pay the claimant's costs on an indemnity basis are sufficient sanction.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: JSC BTA Bank; Defendant: Roman Vladimirovich Solodchenko; Defendant/respondent: Paul Kythreotis; Defendant: Jason Christian Hercules; Defendant: Celina Holding Investments Limited (formerly Bubris Investments Limited); Defendant: Shoreline Investment Holding Limited (formerly Granta Investment Holdings Limited); Defendant: Nafazko Investments Limited; Defendant: Olofu Investment Limited; Defendant: Mymana Holdings Investment Limited (formerly Kyma Investment Holdings Limited); Defendant: Mabco Inc; Defendant: Calernen Finance Inc; Defendant: Astrogold Corp; Defendant: Grundberg Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing After Finding of Contempt
Outcome
Non-custodial sentence; costs order against contemnor
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Freezing Injunctions, Disclosure Orders, Sanctions for Non Compliance, Mitigation in Contempt Proceedings
Civil Procedure Banking Law Fraud Asset Recovery Civil Contempt Freezing Injunctions Disclosure Orders Sanctions for Non Compliance +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant/applicant

Roman Vladimirovich Solodchenko

Defendant

Paul Kythreotis

Defendant/respondent

Jason Christian Hercules

Defendant

Celina Holding Investments Limited (formerly Bubris Investments Limited)

Defendant

Shoreline Investment Holding Limited (formerly Granta Investment Holdings Limited)

Defendant

Nafazko Investments Limited

Defendant

Olofu Investment Limited

Defendant

Mymana Holdings Investment Limited (formerly Kyma Investment Holdings Limited)

Defendant

Mabco Inc

Defendant

Calernen Finance Inc

Defendant

Astrogold Corp

Defendant

Grundberg Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing After Finding of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for admitted civil contempt by Mr Kythreotis for breach of disclosure orders?
  2. 2 Has Mr Kythreotis purged his contempt by subsequent compliance?
  3. 3 What weight should be given to the degree of cooperation and mitigation offered by the contemnor?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the apparent substantial compliance with the disclosure order, the significant personal expense incurred by Mr Kythreotis, his admission of contempt, and the absence of specific prejudice to the claimant, a custodial sentence is not justified. The costs incurred and the order to pay the claimant's costs on an indemnity basis are sufficient sanction.

Court Disposition

Non-custodial sentence; costs order against contemnor

Orders

  • No custodial sentence imposed on Mr Kythreotis for contempt
  • Mr Kythreotis to pay the costs of the committal application on the indemnity basis