[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Shell International Trading & Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Tikhonov & Ors [2010] EWHC 1770 (QB) (16 July 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1770.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 1770 (QB)

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		16/07/2010

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE JACK
____________________

Between:

	(1) SHELL INTERNATIONAL TRADING & SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED 2) SHELL TRADING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (3) SHELL TRADING RUSSIA BV	Claimants
	- and -
	(1) EVEGNY TIKHONOV (2) T CAPITAL LIMITED (3) T CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED	Defendants

____________________

Mr Peter de Verneuil Smith (instructed by Clifford Chance LLP) for the Claimants
The First Defendant appeared in person
Hearing dates: 17 - 28 May 2010
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

RULING AS TO ORDERS CONSEQUENT ON JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 23 JUNE 2010

Mr Justice Jack :

1. I have received written submissions from Mr De Verneuil Smith on behalf of Shell, and from Mr Tikhonov. I have also received an application by Mr Tikhonov for permission to appeal and for a stay pending appeal. Mr Smith's submissions included a draft order which I can accept as the basis of the order to be made.
2. Compound interest. Given the nature of the claim against Mr Tikhonov in respect of the Sovfracht Schedule and the 2007 payments, it is appropriate that there be compound interest from the dates of receipt until date of judgment, 23 June 2010. I consider that 8% is too high, and that 4.5% p.a. but with monthly rests is more appropriate over the relevant period. However if the monthly calculation is over-complex, Shell may opt for yearly rests.
3. Costs. The dishonest nature of the defences run by Mr Tikhonov make an order for indemnity costs appropriate. There should be a substantial payment on account. I accept that the figure sought on behalf of Shell, namely £750,000, is reasonable.
4. Hearsay notice statements. These were put in evidence during the trial and have entered the public domain. They may be disclosed to the police.
5. Permission to appeal. Permission to Mr Tikhonov to appeal is refused. I refer to his proposed grounds set out in his email of 28 June at 19.18.

(a) The position as to the law governing Mr Tikhonov's contract of employment was clear : see paragraphs 41 and 42 of my judgment. I referred to the opinion he obtained as to Russian law in paragraph 41 : it did not assist him.

(b) There is no explanation why Mr Morosov has changed his mind about providing a statement. It is not stated that he is prepared to come to England and give evidence. Mr Tikhonov has not previously said that he has sought evidence from Ms Topunova. Mr Tikhonov has a history of coming back with more evidence : see the judgment of Teare J.

6. Stay pending appeal. There is no reason to stay the judgment pending the proposed appeal. The appeal is without merit and in event there is no doubt as to the ability of the claimants to repay any sums should they be ordered to do so.