BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
BUSINESS LIST
Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
____________________
ANDREY ROGACHEV |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
MIKHAIL GORYAINOV |
Defendant |
____________________
MR TIM AKKOUH KC and MR SEBASTIAN MELLAB (instructed by Candey Limited) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 3-5 December 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
HHJ JOHNS KC:
Introduction
Currency conversion
"… of course the exercise here at the end of the day is one of accounting between two parties in the joint venture and that joint venture relationship has always accounted between itself in US dollars."
Cash CapEx
Declarations and orders
"The net balancing payment is to be calculated on the basis that (i) C will obtain ownership of the K24, K25 and LB30 markets and (ii) D will obtain ownership of the V177 and U26 markets (and that declarations and appropriate consequential orders should be granted to this effect)."
Payment of the balancing sum
"I am instructed that his assets are held in the form of various instruments which will need to be liquidated and transferred between different financial institutions in order to reach a cash account, from which a payment into Court can be made. Such operations will give rise to KYC enquiries which, as the Claimant is a Russian citizen, are now invariably protracted. In addition, documents may need to be obtained from sources in the UK, Switzerland and/or Russia in response to such enquiries which, due to the consecutive holiday periods in these countries, may give rise to delays."
Costs
"(i) The fact that a party has not won on every issue is not, of itself, a reason for depriving that party of part of its costs.
'There is no automatic rule requiring reduction of a successful party's costs if he loses on one or more issues. In any litigation, especially complex litigation such as the present case, any winning party is likely to fail on one or more issues in the case. As Simon Brown LJ said in Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership [2002] EWCA Civ 1125 at paragraph 35: the court can properly have regard to the fact that in almost every case even the winner is likely to fail on some issues'. (Gloster J in Kidsons v Lloyds Underwriters [2007] EWHC 2699 (Comm)).
(ii) The reasonableness of taking a failed point can be taken into account (Antonelli v Allen The Times 8th December 2000 per Neuberger J).
(iii) The extra costs associated with the failed points should be considered (Antonelli).
(iv) One still has to stand back and look at the matter globally, and consider the extent, if any, to which it is just to deprive the successful party of costs. (Antonelli).
(v) The conduct of the parties, both before and during the proceedings, is capable of being relevant (CPR 44.3(5))."
"As its name indicates, US Prime is the rate offered by US banks to their most creditworthy business customers. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to have a default rule that there will always be an uplift over and above US Prime in an interest award. In some cases, even without evidence, it will be obvious from the general characteristics of the claimant that it would have to pay a higher rate to borrow US$ than a bank's most creditworthy customers. In such cases, the court may well be persuaded to order interest at US Prime plus 1% or US Prime plus 2% for certain types of claimant. Higher uplifts than that are likely to require evidence to justify them."
Other issues