(1) Jsc Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank (2) State Corporation "Deposit Insurance Agency" v Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

(1) Jsc Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank (2) State Corporation "Deposit Insurance Agency" v Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

The Defendant's conduct, while evasive and unsatisfactory in parts, did not meet the high threshold for indemnity costs as dishonesty or bad faith was not clearly established. However, inconsistencies and lack of cooperation justified an order for the Defendant to pay 80% of the Claimants' costs of the cross-examination on the standard basis. Further affidavit evidence was ordered, limited to clarifying specific inconsistencies regarding certain companies and transactions, and to explain the Defendant's living expenses. The passport order was to continue pending compliance.

Parties
Claimant: JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank; Claimant: State Corporation "Deposit Insurance Agency"; Defendant: Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Cross Examination, Costs and Further Affidavit Applications
Outcome
Defendant to pay 80% of Claimants' costs of the cross-examination on the standard basis; further affidavit ordered; passport order continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Costs (indemnity and Standard Basis), Cross Examination, Trusts, Jurisdiction, International Assistance
Civil Procedure Insolvency Asset Recovery Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Costs (indemnity and Standard Basis) Cross Examination Trusts +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank

Claimant

State Corporation "Deposit Insurance Agency"

Claimant

Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Cross Examination, Costs and Further Affidavit Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant should pay costs of cross-examination on an indemnity or standard basis
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be ordered to provide a further affidavit regarding his assets and historic wealth
  3. 3 Whether the passport order restraining the Defendant from leaving the jurisdiction should continue

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's conduct, while evasive and unsatisfactory in parts, did not meet the high threshold for indemnity costs as dishonesty or bad faith was not clearly established. However, inconsistencies and lack of cooperation justified an order for the Defendant to pay 80% of the Claimants' costs of the cross-examination on the standard basis. Further affidavit evidence was ordered, limited to clarifying specific inconsistencies regarding certain companies and transactions, and to explain the Defendant's living expenses. The passport order was to continue pending compliance.

Court Disposition

Defendant to pay 80% of Claimants' costs of the cross-examination on the standard basis; further affidavit ordered; passport order continued.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay 80% of Claimants' costs of the cross-examination on the standard basis.
  • Defendant to file a further affidavit clarifying interests in specified companies (Basterre, EPK, JSC Sanara, Plescheevo CJSC, Safelight, Oreon Limited, Creative Associates), the fate of certain sums, and his living expenses, with supporting bank statements for a specified period.