header-logo header-logo

23 January 2015
Issue: 7637 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Public Joint Stock Company Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v Maksimov and others [2014] EWHC 4370 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 218 (Dec)

In earlier proceedings, the claimant bank had applied to commit the first defendant, Sergey Maksimov, to prison for contempt of court for allegedly breaching worldwide freezing orders. The court had dismissed most of the bank’s grounds of contempt. The Commercial Court held that the appropriate costs order to make in the exercise of its discretion was that the bank should pay 80% of Maksimov’s costs since January 2014. It further ordered that an interim payment of £175,000 was appropriate.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll