Kinstellar LLC v Eagle Properties (No 14) Limited [2020] JRC 117 (18 June 2020)

Kinstellar LLC v Eagle Properties (No 14) Limited [2020] JRC 117 (18 June 2020)

The court has discretion to order a payment into court where the respondent's defence to enforcement of an arbitral award is not based on a statutory ground under Article 44 but on set-off/counterclaim and challenge to assignment. The respondent's financial position and the risk of non-enforcement justify requiring payment into court. The respondent is permitted to convene and serve Mr Parfenyuk as a third party out of the jurisdiction. Standard costs, not indemnity costs, are appropriate given the overall conduct of the parties.

Citation
[2020] JRC 117
Parties
Representor: Kinstellar LLC; Respondent: Eagle Properties (No 14) Limited; Third Party: Petro Parfenyuk
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Enforcement and Related Applications / Interlocutory Judgment on Third Party Joinder, Service Out of Jurisdiction, and Payment Into Court
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Set Off and Counterclaim, Assignment of Claims, Third Party Procedure, Payment Into Court, Jurisdiction for Service Out, Costs Orders
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Set Off and Counterclaim Assignment of Claims Third Party Procedure Payment Into Court +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kinstellar LLC

Representor

Eagle Properties (No 14) Limited

Respondent

Petro Parfenyuk

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Enforcement and Related Applications / Interlocutory Judgment on Third Party Joinder, Service Out of Jurisdiction, and Payment Into Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent may convene and serve Mr Parfenyuk as a third party out of the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order a payment into court of the amount of the representor's claim
  3. 3 Whether, as a matter of discretion, a payment into court should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court has discretion to order a payment into court where the respondent's defence to enforcement of an arbitral award is not based on a statutory ground under Article 44 but on set-off/counterclaim and challenge to assignment. The respondent's financial position and the risk of non-enforcement justify requiring payment into court. The respondent is permitted to convene and serve Mr Parfenyuk as a third party out of the jurisdiction. Standard costs, not indemnity costs, are appropriate given the overall conduct of the parties.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Permission granted to convene and serve Mr Parfenyuk as a third party out of the jurisdiction.
  • Respondent ordered to pay into court the amount of the costs award (€800,228.40 plus interest at 7% per annum from 5 September 2019 to 10 March 2020).