Summary

...

The first matter to address is costs as between PDV and Clyde.

There is no dispute between PDV and Clyde that the starting point is the general rule in CPR 44.2 that the unsuccessful party should pay the costs of the successful parties. Nor is there any dispute that Clyde is the successful party and (in view of the terms of the indemnity contained in clause 6.3 of the Tripartite Agreement) entitled to have its costs assessed on the indemnity basis: Alafco Irish Aircraft Leasing Sixteen Ltd v Hong Kong Airlines [2019] EWHC 3668 (Comm).

The dispute between PDV and Clyde is whether such an order should be made simply in relation to the costs of the action (so sweeping up all interlocutory applications including those where costs were reserved) or whether the costs of certain interlocutory matters should be the subject of discrete and different orders. As to this dispute, PDV appear (in a letter dated 28 October 2020) to accept that the costs incurred by Clyde (i) in consequence of the ex parte hearing on 4 August 2020 (ii) of the application dated 6 August 2020 for continuation of the injunction (including the costs relating to the original return date) and (iii) of the applications dated 18 and 21 August for discharge of the injunction and Defendants' summary judgment (including the costs of the hearing before me on 23 and 24 September and the written submissions following it) should all be treated as costs of the action.

This means that the dispute is confined to the costs incurred by Clyde in connection with POS' applications (i) for a variation of the injunction granted by Zacaroli J so as to mandate a continuation of the existing escrow arrangements relating to the periodic payment to POS of operational expenses and legal expenses (reserved by the order dated 14 August 2020); (ii) for the joinder of the NCA ("the joinder issue") (reserved by order dated 19 August 2020) and (iii) for a declaration that monies not held by Clyde subject to the Tripartite Agreement but by Clyde & Co in its client account for its client POS were not the subject of the injunction (reserved by order dated 26 August 2020).

...

OGEL:

• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 3430 (Ch) (15 December 2020)
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 3297 (Ch) (02 December 2020)
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP 2020 EWHC 2819 Ch - 23 October 2020
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP 2020 EWHC 2322 Ch - Approved Judgment by Mr Justice Snowden - 26 August 2020
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP 2020 EWHC 2202 Ch - Approved Judgment by Mr Justice Zacaroli - 04 August 2020

TDM:

• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 3430 (Ch) (15 December 2020)
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP & Anor [2020] EWHC 3297 (Ch) (02 December 2020)
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP 2020 EWHC 2819 Ch - 23 October 2020
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP 2020 EWHC 2322 Ch - Approved Judgment by Mr Justice Snowden - 26 August 2020
• PDVSA Servicios SA v Clyde & Co LLP 2020 EWHC 2202 Ch - Approved Judgment by Mr Justice Zacaroli - 04 August 2020