Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Cabot : Costs) [2025] JRC 320 (1 December 2025)

Golden Sphinx Limited v Itkin (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Cabot : Costs) [2025] JRC 320 (1 December 2025)

Set-off is not permitted due to the Plaintiff's insolvency and the operation of Article 10(1)(a) of the Désastre Law, which prohibits enforcement of Mr Itkin's judgment outside the proof process. Striking out the Defendant's Answer for non-payment of costs is disproportionate at this stage given alternative remedies and the Defendant's compliance with other orders; a further opportunity for compliance is appropriate.

Citation
[2025] JRC 320
Parties
Plaintiff: Golden Sphinx Limited; Defendant: Mr Itkin
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Set Off and Enforcement of Unless Order
Outcome
Defendant's application for set-off refused; Plaintiff's application to strike out Defendant's Answer refused; unless order discharged and replaced with new directions and sanctions.
Legal Topics
Set Off of Judgments, Unless Orders, Costs Enforcement, Insolvency Proceedings, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Insolvency Company Law Set Off of Judgments Unless Orders Costs Enforcement Insolvency Proceedings Declaratory Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Golden Sphinx Limited

Plaintiff

Mr Itkin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Set Off and Enforcement of Unless Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is entitled to set off an interim costs order against an existing judgment against the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's Answer should be struck out for non-compliance with an unless order for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Set-off is not permitted due to the Plaintiff's insolvency and the operation of Article 10(1)(a) of the Désastre Law, which prohibits enforcement of Mr Itkin's judgment outside the proof process. Striking out the Defendant's Answer for non-payment of costs is disproportionate at this stage given alternative remedies and the Defendant's compliance with other orders; a further opportunity for compliance is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for set-off refused; Plaintiff's application to strike out Defendant's Answer refused; unless order discharged and replaced with new directions and sanctions.

Orders

  • Unless order discharged but interim payment order for costs remains in force.
  • Parties to exchange affidavits and draft discovery protocols by specified dates.