Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and 75 ors. v Yuri Privalov and 28 ors
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Andrew Smith |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 1312 (Comm) |
| Date | 25 May 2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Claim no 2005 Folio 534 Claim no: 2009 Folio 191 |
[2011] EWHC 1312 (Comm)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Claim no 2005 Folio 534
Claim no: 2007 Folio 482
Claim no: 2009 Folio 191
Counsel
Simon Birt Fionn Pilbrow Instructed by Ince & Co. for the Claimants in actions: 2005 Folio 534, 2007 Folio 482 and 2009 Folio 91.
Susannah Jones Instructed by Stephenson Harwood for Mr. Dmitry Skarga
Jern-Fei Ng Instructed by Stephenson Harwood for Mr. Tagir Izmaylov
These are my rulings upon the outstanding issues between the claimants in the Fiona actions and Mr. Skarga and between the claimants in the Intrigue action and Mr. Izmaylov. The parties have sensibly agreed that I should determine them on the basis of written submissions without hearing oral argument.
Judgments Act interest
In my judgment of 24 March 2011 I awarded costs in favour of Mr. Skarga and Mr. Izmaylov. The effect of section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 and CPR 40.8 is that interest is to be paid at 8% per annum on the amount of the costs from 24 March 2011 unless I order otherwise. The claimants apply for an order to defer to 24 September 2011 the date from which Judgments Act interest should run. This is, of course, because the rate is currently considerably higher than commercial rates charged and paid.
I have jurisdiction to make an order of this kind. Comparable orders were made by David Steel J in Colour Quest Ltd and others v Total Downstream and others, [2009] EWHC 823 (Comm); by Tugendhat J in D Pride and Partners v Institute for Animal Health, [2009] EWHC 1617 (QB); and by Roth J in London Tara Hotel Ltd v Kensington Close Hotel Ltd, [2011] EWHC 29 (Ch). My attention has been drawn by Ms. Susannah Jones, representing Mr. Skarga, to the decision of Mann J in Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS, [2009] EWHC 773 (Pat). I do not understand Mann J to state that the court has no jurisdiction to make orders of this kind, and Ms. Jones does not, I think, suggest that that is the effect of his judgment. Rather he explains clearly why such orders should not routinely be made.
The statutory position provides general certainty and clarity, and Judgments Act interest should not be deferred simply because it is at a considerably higher rate than commercial rates. There must be something about the circumstances of the particular case that justify a departure from the usual rule, and it is for the applicant seeking deferral to show this. Typically the applicant would have to show that particular features of the case mean that the application of the general rule would be so unfair to him that justice requires departure from it. This might be because a large amount of costs is likely to be outstanding for a particularly long period and the applicant cannot be expected to avoid this by assessing what costs he will have to pay and making (or tendering) a substantial payment on account. I agree with the claimants that, if such unfairness is shown, the fact that the Judgments Act interest rate encourages the paying party to reach a compromise would not be a proper reason to refuse an order.
I do not consider that it is in itself a sufficient justification for deferring Judgments Act interest that the costs are likely to be unusually large. In this case the claimants rely on more than that: they submit that the nature of the litigation and complexity of the case means that significant questions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelley Mann v David Anthony Mann
...than a commercial rate of interest prevailing from time to time: see Fiona Trust & Holding Corp and Others v Privalov and Others [2011] EWHC 1312 (Comm). In Fisher Meredith LLP v JH and Another [2012] EWHC 408 (Fam), [2012] 2 FLR 536, Mostyn J mitigated the impact of the judgment debt rate......
-
Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Sean Breslin and Another
...— see the summary of the cases in Standard Chartered Bank v Ceylon Petroleum Corp [2011] EWHC 2094 (Comm). In Fiona Trust v Privalov [2011] EWHC 1312 (Comm) Andrew Smith J held that in order to make a case for postponement: "Typically the applicant would have to show that particular feature......
-
Bruce MacInnes v Hans Thomas Gross (First Defendant)
...which has to be paid is known’. It also reflects the unfairness which Andrew Smith J in [Fiona Trust & Holding Corpn v Privalov [2011] EWHC 1312 (Comm); [2011] 3 Costs LO 338] recognised as potentially arising where it is predictable that there will be an amount of costs outstanding for a p......
-
Involnert Management Inc. v Aprilgrange Ltd & Others AIS Insurance Services Ltd (First Third Party) OAMPS Special Risks Ltd (Second Third Party)
...that reasoning does not apply before the amount which has to be paid is known." 15 In Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v Privalov [2011] EWHC 1312 (Comm), [2011] 3 Costs LO 338, Andrew Smith J agreed that the date from which Judgments Act interest runs should not be deferred simply because......