Zuzana Kapova v (1) Miloslav Makovini (2) Pharm Trade Holding Ltd [2024] DIFC CA 004 (12 January 2024)

Zuzana Kapova v (1) Miloslav Makovini (2) Pharm Trade Holding Ltd [2024] DIFC CA 004 (12 January 2024)

The Court found no error of law or fact in the judge's conclusion that the Appellant had taken steps in relation to her assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult, satisfying RDC 25.102(6). The judge was entitled to draw adverse inferences from the Appellant's failure to provide evidence of assets and the asset transfers. The quantum of security was reduced to USD 200,000, reflecting the Court's discretion.

Citation
[2024] DIFC CA 004
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Zuzana Kapova; First Defendant/respondent: Miloslav Makovini; Second Defendant/respondent: Pharm Trade Holding Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
12 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Security for Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed save as to reduction in quantum of security for costs.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Corporate Personality, Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Costs Orders Corporate Personality Fiduciary Duties

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zuzana Kapova

Claimant/appellant

Miloslav Makovini

First Defendant/respondent

Pharm Trade Holding Ltd

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Security for Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had taken steps in relation to her assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult under RDC 25.102(6)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law or fact in ordering security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of security for costs was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no error of law or fact in the judge's conclusion that the Appellant had taken steps in relation to her assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult, satisfying RDC 25.102(6). The judge was entitled to draw adverse inferences from the Appellant's failure to provide evidence of assets and the asset transfers. The quantum of security was reduced to USD 200,000, reflecting the Court's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed save as to reduction in quantum of security for costs.

Orders

  • Appellant to pay USD 200,000 into court within 14 days unless escrow arrangement agreed and approved.
  • Appellant to pay 85% of Respondents’ costs, to be assessed by Registry if not agreed.