British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & Anor v Pugachev & Ors [2017] EWHC 1853 (Ch) (13 July 2017)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2017/1853.html
Cite as: [2017] EWHC 1853 (Ch)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| (1) JSCMEZHDUNARODNIY PROMYSHLENNIY BANK | ||
| (2) STATE CORPORATION "DEPOSIT INSURANCE AGENCY" | Claimants | |
| - and - | ||
| (1) SERGEI VICTOROVICH PUGACHEV | ||
| (2) KEA TRUST COMPANY LIMITED | ||
| (3) FINETREE COMPANY LIMITED | ||
| (4) BRAMERTON COMPANY LIMITED | ||
| (5) BLUERING COMPANY LIMITED | ||
| (6)MARU LIMITED | ||
| (7) HAPORI LIMITED | ||
| (8)MIHARO LIMITED | ||
| (9) AROTAU LIMITED | ||
| (10) LUXURY CONSULTING LIMITED | ||
| (11) VICTOR PUGACHEV | ||
| (12) ALEXIS SERGEEVICH PUGACHEV | ||
| (13) IVAN SERGEEVICH PUGACHEV | ||
| (14) MARIA SERGEEVNA PUGACHEV | ||
| (The 12th, 13th and 14th Defendants by their litigation friend ALEXANDRA TOLSTOY) | Defendants |
____________________
HODGE MALEK QC AND PAUL BURTON (instructed by DEVONSHIRES SOLICITORS LLP) appeared on behalf of the Twelfth to Fourteenth Defendants.
CHARLES SAMEK QC AND NICO LESLIE (instructed by HUGHMANS SOLICITORS LLP) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- I now need to resolve an application to increase the costs budget for the infant children, having regard to the fact that the trial has expanded in length. I bear in mind that what has happened includes, although it is not limited to, the interventions on Mr Pugachev's behalf which have certainly delayed matters somewhat, but other things have happened as well to lengthen the proceedings. The time for the trial was originally estimated for 8.5 days. That included two days reading. It will now take, to finish, a total of ten days. Also as a result of the way things have gone and the diary, instead of coming straight after the oral cross-examination of the witnesses, the closings will now come at a period about a week afterwards. That has a significant advantage from my point of view in that it means that the parties will be able to have some time to prepare written closing documents which will, I am sure, assist me in writing my judgment.
- However, all this comes at a cost. Mr Malek, on behalf of his clients, has given me an estimate of the total extra costs that this will involve. It includes three more days of preparation by him and two days of closing, along with three days of preparation by Mr Burton and further work by the various solicitors. The extra total costs comes to £84,000. When I first saw that figure, I was rather surprised. It seemed to be a lot of money. But when I bear in mind that the budget for the infant children fighting this trial is £1.8 million, it is still a lot of money, but, in proportionate terms, not as much as it might have appeared.
- Mr Lloyd for the claimants submits that this is too much and that all the work that needs to be done should be covered by the existing budget. I do not agree. It is clear that more work will be done than was originally budgeted for. It is also clear that that extra work, in particular the time spent preparing the written closings, is work which will ultimately assist the court in coming to a just resolution of these proceedings. I should approve an increase the infant children's budget accordingly.
- I am satisfied that the hourly rates being charged and the daily rates by counsel and the solicitors for the infant children are reasonable and proportionate, at least for the purposes of approving a budget.
- It could be said that the increase is somewhat generous because it was prepared assuming the increase in trial length was 2 days whereas, to be precise, the extra length of the trial is 1½ days, but in the overall scheme of things, I do not regard that as a significant difference.
- I note that the budget includes attending to correspondence from Julia Pugacheva, whose counsel appeared this morning. That is a minor matter and I will not make a discount. Although it has obviously been included I cannot imagine that it accounts for any significant part of this budget.
- I will approve the increase in the sum sought.
MR JUSTICE BIRSS: