Chernukhin and Anor v Deripasks and Anor [2020] JRC 121 (24 June 2020)

Chernukhin and Anor v Deripasks and Anor [2020] JRC 121 (24 June 2020)

Mr Deripaska, in seeking damages for alleged breaches of duty to the court arising from the original representation, is not to be treated as a plaintiff for the purposes of security for costs. The proceedings are consequential to the original action, and the general rule that defendants are not required to provide security for costs applies. The merits of Mr Deripaska's claims are not so weak as to justify security, and the process of obtaining OFAC consent does not stifle the claim.

Citation
[2020] JRC 121
Parties
Representors (applicants): Mr Chernukhin and Navigator Equities Limited; First Respondent (defendant/claimant in Counter Proceedings): Mr Deripaska; Second Respondent: B-Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
24 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application and Procedural Directions in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (pre Trial) Ruling on Security for Costs and Split Trial Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; application for split trial dismissed; procedural directions given for trial preparation.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Freezing Orders, Full and Frank Disclosure, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Sanctions Compliance
Civil Procedure International Arbitration Injunctions Security for Costs Freezing Orders Full and Frank Disclosure Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Sanctions Compliance

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Chernukhin and Navigator Equities Limited

Representors (applicants)

Mr Deripaska

First Respondent (defendant/claimant in Counter Proceedings)

B-Finance Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application and Procedural Directions in Civil Proceedings / Interlocutory (pre Trial) Ruling on Security for Costs and Split Trial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Deripaska, as claimant in consequential proceedings, should be ordered to provide security for costs under Jersey law
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings initiated by Mr Deripaska are properly characterised as a new action or as consequential to the original representation
  3. 3 Whether the merits of Mr Deripaska's claims justify security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Deripaska, in seeking damages for alleged breaches of duty to the court arising from the original representation, is not to be treated as a plaintiff for the purposes of security for costs. The proceedings are consequential to the original action, and the general rule that defendants are not required to provide security for costs applies. The merits of Mr Deripaska's claims are not so weak as to justify security, and the process of obtaining OFAC consent does not stifle the claim.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed; application for split trial dismissed; procedural directions given for trial preparation.

Orders

  • No order for security for costs against Mr Deripaska.
  • Application for split trial refused.