Trafalgar Developments Ltd & ors v Mazepin [2020] IEHC 13 (17 January 2020)

Trafalgar Developments Ltd & ors v Mazepin [2020] IEHC 13 (17 January 2020)

The court found Ms. Charilaou was in default for not entering appearance within the prescribed period, but this conduct was not sufficiently serious or prejudicial to warrant costs on the solicitor and client basis. The normal sanction for such default is party and party costs. The court was not persuaded that Ms. Charilaou's actions constituted conduct meriting special disapproval. However, plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs of serving documents and translation expenses incurred due to Ms. Charilaou's refusal to accept service in English.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 13
Parties
Plaintiff: Trafalgar Developments Limited; Plaintiff: Instantania Holdings Limited; Plaintiff: Kamara Limited; Plaintiff: Bairiki Incorporated; Defendant: Dmitry Mazepin; Defendant: OJSC United Chemical Company Uralchem; Defendant: Uralchem Holding PLC; Defendant: Eurotoaz Limited; Defendant: Andrey Gennadyevich Babichev; Defendant: Yulia Bolotnikova; Defendant: Belport Investments Limited; Defendant: Milko Emilov Minkovski; Defendant: Androula Charilaou; Defendant: Dmitry Konyaev; Defendant: Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Sedykin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Motion for Judgment in Default of Appearance
Outcome
Costs of the motion for judgment in default of appearance awarded to plaintiffs on party and party basis, not solicitor and client basis.
Legal Topics
Costs, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Translation of Documents, Solicitor and Client Costs, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Default Judgment Service of Process Translation of Documents Solicitor and Client Costs Party and Party Costs

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafalgar Developments Limited

Plaintiff

Instantania Holdings Limited

Plaintiff

Kamara Limited

Plaintiff

Bairiki Incorporated

Plaintiff

Dmitry Mazepin

Defendant

OJSC United Chemical Company Uralchem

Defendant

Uralchem Holding PLC

Defendant

Eurotoaz Limited

Defendant

Andrey Gennadyevich Babichev

Defendant

Yulia Bolotnikova

Defendant

Belport Investments Limited

Defendant

Milko Emilov Minkovski

Defendant

Androula Charilaou

Defendant

Dmitry Konyaev

Defendant

Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Sedykin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Proceedings / Costs Determination Following Motion for Judgment in Default of Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded on solicitor and client basis or party and party basis for motion for judgment in default of appearance
  2. 2 Whether defendant's conduct merits court's disapproval warranting higher costs order
  3. 3 Entitlement to translation of documents under Service Regulation

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Ms. Charilaou was in default for not entering appearance within the prescribed period, but this conduct was not sufficiently serious or prejudicial to warrant costs on the solicitor and client basis. The normal sanction for such default is party and party costs. The court was not persuaded that Ms. Charilaou's actions constituted conduct meriting special disapproval. However, plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs of serving documents and translation expenses incurred due to Ms. Charilaou's refusal to accept service in English.

Court Disposition

Costs of the motion for judgment in default of appearance awarded to plaintiffs on party and party basis, not solicitor and client basis.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to recover costs of serving documents and translation expenses incurred for service on Ms. Charilaou in Cyprus.
  • Stay on execution of costs order pending determination of proceedings.