JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev [2015] EWHC 1694 (Ch) (12 June 2015)

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev [2015] EWHC 1694 (Ch) (12 June 2015)

The defendant's evidence was evasive and inconsistent but did not meet the high threshold for indemnity costs; standard basis costs are appropriate. Further affidavit evidence is justified to clarify asset disclosure and historic wealth. The passport order should continue pending compliance.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1694 (Ch)
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
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings (asset Disclosure, Costs, and Ancillary Orders) / Post Cross Examination, Applications for Costs, Further Affidavit, and Continuation of Passport Order
Outcome
Partially in favour of the Claimants.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Cross Examination, Costs (indemnity and Standard Basis), Affidavit Evidence, Jurisdiction in Aid of Foreign Proceedings
Civil Procedure Insolvency Asset Recovery Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Cross Examination Costs (indemnity and Standard Basis) Affidavit Evidence +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 3 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

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings (asset Disclosure, Costs, and Ancillary Orders) / Post Cross Examination, Applications for Costs, Further Affidavit, and Continuation of Passport Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should pay the 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
  3. 3 Whether the passport order restraining the defendant from leaving the jurisdiction should be continued

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's evidence was evasive and inconsistent but did not meet the high threshold for indemnity costs; standard basis costs are appropriate. Further affidavit evidence is justified to clarify asset disclosure and historic wealth. The passport order should continue pending compliance.

Court Disposition

Partially in favour of the Claimants.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay 80% of the costs of the cross-examination hearing on the standard basis.
  • Defendant to provide a further affidavit clarifying asset schedule, historic wealth, and specific transactions.