Republic of Brazil v Durant [2012] JCA 160 (07 September 2012)

Republic of Brazil v Durant [2012] JCA 160 (07 September 2012)

Applicants' conduct in pursuing applications for leave to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence was wholly unreasonable, lacking substantive grounds and explanations, justifying an award of indemnity costs.

Citation
[2012] JCA 160
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: The Federal Republic of Brazil; Respondent/plaintiff: The Municipality of Sao Paulo; Applicant/defendant: Durant International Corporation; Applicant/defendant: Kildare Finance Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche Bank International Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited; Party Cited: Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs / Post Appeal Applications
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Leave to Appeal

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Federal Republic of Brazil

Respondent/plaintiff

The Municipality of Sao Paulo

Respondent/plaintiff

Durant International Corporation

Applicant/defendant

Kildare Finance Limited

Applicant/defendant

Deutsche Bank International Limited

Party Cited

Deutsche International Custodial Services Limited

Party Cited

Deutsche International Corporate Services Limited

Party Cited

Deutsche International Trustee Services (CI) Limited

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs / Post Appeal Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for applications for leave to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants' conduct in pursuing applications for leave to appeal and to adduce fresh evidence was wholly unreasonable, lacking substantive grounds and explanations, justifying an award of indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence on the indemnity basis.