The High Court ordered Androula Charilaou to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of a motion for judgment in default of appearance on the ordinary party and party basis, after she entered an unconditional appearance two days before the motion was due to be heard. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for the higher solicitor and client basis and refused her request for a stay on execution.
The order includes the costs of serving specified documents on Ms Charilaou in Cyprus and translating them into Greek. Those costs cover papers for a January 2018 motion to amend the statement of claim, an attempted service of a further amended version in February, the translated amended statement and covering letter served in April, and the translated motion papers and supporting affidavits served in July. The amounts are to be agreed or determined by a legal costs adjudicator. The court disallowed costs associated with a notice and letter served on 17 July after an oversight meant the notice had not accompanied the earlier papers.
The proceedings began in November 2016. The plaintiffs allege that Ms Charilaou and other defendants took part in a scheme to deprive them of shares in Russian company OJSC Togliattiazot for the benefit of Dmitry Mazepin. Ms Charilaou denies the allegations. This costs ruling did not determine the underlying claims.
Ms Charilaou was served in Cyprus in February 2017 and had five weeks to enter an appearance. She accepted that she was in default. The plaintiffs issued their default judgment motion in June 2018, and she entered an unconditional appearance on 25 July, before its scheduled hearing on 27 July. The motion against her was struck out; it proceeded against two other defendants.
The plaintiffs argued that her deliberate decision to avoid becoming involved until necessary formed part of a strategy to delay the proceedings and caused delay and substantial translation and service expenses. Ms Charilaou said her decision was not intended to delay the case. After appearing, she agreed to and complied with a timetable for further pleadings and discovery.
Justice David Barniville found that her late appearance was a breach of the five-week rule, but said the explanation was not totally unreasonable. The evidence did not persuade him that she had adopted a deliberate strategy to delay proceedings, and he was reluctant to make such a finding without tested oral evidence. He also noted that the plaintiffs waited about 14 months after the appearance deadline before bringing their motion, and that steps taken by other defendants contributed to delay.
The judge concluded that solicitor and client costs would be unfair and not in the interests of justice. He ordered party and party costs, including the specified service and translation expenses, and refused a stay. The costs ruling was delivered on 17 January 2020.