Shell International Trading & Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Tikhonov & Ors

Where a claim concerns dishonest receipt of money, the court may award compound interest from the dates of receipt to judgment where that better reflects the nature of the claim. The rate and rests must be appropriate to the relevant period; a lower rate with monthly rests may be preferable to a higher simple rate.

Dishonest defences may justify an order for indemnity costs and a substantial payment on account. Evidence admitted at trial and placed in the public domain may be disclosed to the police. Permission to appeal and a stay should be refused where the proposed appeal is without merit and there is no sufficient reason to suspend the judgment.

The claimants sought consequential orders following Mr Justice Jack’s judgment delivered on 23 June 2010 in proceedings against Mr Tikhonov and the other defendants. The court considered the appropriate interest on claims concerning the Sovfracht Schedule and the 2007 payments, the basis and amount of the costs order, the disclosure of hearsay notice statements, and Mr Tikhonov’s applications for permission to appeal and for a stay pending appeal.

The issues were whether compound interest and indemnity costs were justified, whether the evidential material could be disclosed to the police, and whether the judgment should be stayed pending an appeal.

1. Compound interest. In view of the nature of the claims concerning the Sovfracht Schedule and the 2007 payments, compound interest was appropriate from the dates of receipt until judgment on 23 June 2010. An annual rate of 4.5 per cent with monthly rests was considered appropriate. The claimants could instead use yearly rests if the monthly calculation proved unduly complex.

2. Costs. The dishonest nature of Mr Tikhonov’s defences justified an order for indemnity costs. A substantial payment on account was appropriate, and £750,000 was accepted as a reasonable figure.

3. Disclosure of evidence. The hearsay notice statements had been put in evidence at trial and had entered the public domain. They could therefore be disclosed to the police.

4. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused. The court considered that the law governing Mr Tikhonov’s employment contract was clear, as explained at paragraphs 41 and 42 of the earlier judgment, and that the Russian-law opinion relied upon did not assist him. The proposed further evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for an appeal.

5. Stay. A stay pending appeal was refused. The proposed appeal was without merit, and there was no doubt about the claimants’ ability to repay sums if required following an appeal.

The judgment records that the court had previously delivered judgment on 23 June 2010. The present decision ruled on the orders consequential upon that judgment. The court refused permission to appeal and refused a stay pending appeal.