Sheyko v Consolidated Minerals and Anor [2019] JRC 008 (29 January 2019)

Sheyko v Consolidated Minerals and Anor [2019] JRC 008 (29 January 2019)

The Defendant's applications to vary and discharge the interim injunction were wasteful and lacked merit, particularly in light of undisclosed financial support from its parent company. The Plaintiff was successful in defending substantial challenges, and the Defendant's conduct justified indemnity costs for the application to vary and discharge, and standard costs for the withdrawn application.

Citation
[2019] JRC 008
Parties
Plaintiff: Oleg Sheyko; Defendant: Consolidated Minerals Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Costs / Post Hearing Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs awarded to Plaintiff; Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiff's costs of applications to vary and discharge on indemnity basis, and costs of withdrawn application and current application on standard basis.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Mareva Injunction, Costs Orders, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Employment Law Interim Injunctions Mareva Injunction Costs Orders Disclosure Obligations

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oleg Sheyko

Plaintiff

Consolidated Minerals Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Costs / Post Hearing Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate costs order following unsuccessful applications to vary and discharge interim injunction
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on indemnity or standard basis
  3. 3 Effect of non-disclosure and withdrawal of application on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's applications to vary and discharge the interim injunction were wasteful and lacked merit, particularly in light of undisclosed financial support from its parent company. The Plaintiff was successful in defending substantial challenges, and the Defendant's conduct justified indemnity costs for the application to vary and discharge, and standard costs for the withdrawn application.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Plaintiff; Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiff's costs of applications to vary and discharge on indemnity basis, and costs of withdrawn application and current application on standard basis.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application to vary and discharge the interim injunction on indemnity basis.
  • Defendant to pay Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the withdrawn application to discharge on standard basis.