Alexander Valeryevich Timokhin v Anna Anatolyevna Timokhina

A stay of enforcement pending appeal is exceptional. The court must identify a solid basis for departing from the usual position and assess the balance of harm. Parallel enforcement in different jurisdictions is permissible, subject to avoiding double recovery. Under Part 36, the unsuccessful party bears a formidable burden of establishing injustice before the usual costs consequences can be displaced. A high settlement offer may be genuine where it reflects the strength of the claim. Interest may be awarded despite a pleading omission where the court has power to award it and no prejudice is shown. A payment on account of costs should represent a reasonable estimate of likely recovery, allowing for uncertainty and error.

The judgment concerned consequential orders following the court’s earlier decision, [2026] EWHC 439 (KB), which recognised and enforced two Russian judgments concerning a contested post-nuptial agreement. The claimant sought enforcement of a debt of £417,416.67.

The defendant applied for stays pending a domestic appeal and Russian bankruptcy proceedings. The parties also disputed the consequences of a claimant’s Part 36 offer, interest on the judgment debt and costs, and payment on account of costs. The central issues were whether enforcement should be stayed, whether it would be unjust to impose the Part 36 consequences, whether interest could be awarded, and what sum should be paid on account.

1. Stays. The applications for stays pending domestic appeal and Russian bankruptcy proceedings were refused. An appeal does not itself operate as a stay, and a stay is generally exceptional. As there was no risk of the appeal being stifled, the relevant question was the balance of harm, applying the approach in Hammond Suddard Solicitors v Agrichem International Holdings Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2065. The claimant’s substantial UK assets, the defendant’s limited practical protection and the real risk of dissipation meant that the balance of prejudice fell decisively in favour of enforcement.
2. Parallel enforcement methods and enforcement in different jurisdictions were not objectionable in principle. Double recovery had to be avoided, but no real risk of over-enrichment was established. There were no special circumstances under CPR 83.7(4)(a) making it inexpedient to enforce in England. The judge also observed that the appeal appeared weak, although that factor was not taken into account.
3. Part 36. The claimant’s offer was a genuine and realistic attempt to settle. Its high level was justified by the strength of the claim, notwithstanding the binary nature of recognition and enforcement proceedings. The defendant failed to establish injustice, which remained a formidable obstacle under ABFA Commodities Trading Ltd v Petraco Oil Company [2024] EWHC 706 (Comm) and Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3320 (Ch). The CPR 36.17(4) consequences therefore applied.
4. Interest. Interest was awarded on the judgment debt and costs at the rates specified in the order. CPR 16.1 made Part 16 inapplicable to this Part 8 claim. In any event, the failure to plead interest was not fatal. Following El Ajou v Stern [2006] EWCA Civ 120, the court retained power to award interest and no prejudice had been shown.
5. Payment on account and disposal. Applying Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc [2015] EWHC 566 (Comm), the court ordered payment on account of 65 per cent of the claimant’s costs. Costs were awarded on the standard basis up to expiry of the relevant period and on the indemnity basis thereafter, with the additional payments and interest set out in the order. The parties were directed to file an agreed order.

First-instance consequential judgment following the trial judgment at [2026] EWHC 439 (KB). Permission to appeal was refused by this court, but the defendant indicated an intention to apply further to the Court of Appeal.