S – Security for costs
24/6/20
INTERNATIONAL PIPELINE PRODUCTS LTD v IK UK LIMITED [2020] EWHC 1602 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied on applications for security for costs against a company [12]. On the facts the threshold test was not met because defendants had failed to satisfy the court that there was reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay the defendant’s costs.
26/6/20
INFINITY DISTRIBUTION LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v THE KHAN PARTNERSHIP LLP [2020] EWHC 1657 (Ch)
A deed of indemnity was ordered to be provided by a claimant as security for the defendant’s costs. The fact that the deed would increase the claimant’s own costs for which the defendant could be liable if the claim succeeded was not relevant in considering whether the deed was acceptable as security for costs.
11/6/20
BRAKE v GUY [2020] EWHC 1484 (Ch)
Evidence in a witness statement on an interim application cannot be disbelieved unless it is simply incredible [17]. Considers principles on which the court will order security for costs against an individual claimant under CPR 25.13(2)(g) because the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him [36]. During the hearing the defendant conceded the test was not satisfied, but the court would not have ordered security in any event. The defendant was therefore liable to pay the claimant’s costs but there was nothing sufficiently out of the norm to justify assessment on the indemnity basis [75].
23/5/17
THE RBS RIGHTS ISSUE LITIGATION [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)
Considers relevant considerations to be taken into account when the court is asked to order that security for costs be provided by a litigation funder under CPR 25.14. On the facts a professional litigation funder was ordered to provide £7.5m as security, but security was not ordered to be provided by a company which was providing finance but was not a professional litigation funder.
14/8/15
SARPD OIL INTERNATIONAL LTD v ADDAZ ENERGY [2015] EWHC 2426 (Comm)
Order for security for costs refused as CPR25.13(2)(c) (inability of company to pay defendant’s costs) had not been met.
11/5/15
HNIAZDZILAU v VAIGEL [2015] EWHC 1582 (Ch)
An application for security for costs had been rightly dismissed on grounds of delay in making the application.
25/2/15
NGM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v WALLIS [2015] EWHC 461 (Ch)
A claimant arranged ATE cover and offered an undertaking to inform the defendants if the policy was cancelled or if information was received giving reason to believe that it would be cancelled. In those circumstances there was no reason to believe the claimant would be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so and the power to order security for costs did not arise.
20/2/15
PEAK HOTELS & RESORTS LTD v TAREK INVESTMENTS LTD [2015] EWHC 386
Considers cross-applications for security for costs in relation to a claim and counterclaim by foreign registered companies. Security in relation to the claim was ordered principally on grounds of the claimant’s apparent inability to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so. Security in relation to the defendant’s counterclaim was refused, principally because the counterclaim related to the same subject matter as the claim.
26/3/13
PANNONE LLP v AARDVARK DIGITAL LTD [2013] EWHC 686 (Ch)
A company was not required to give security for the costs of its counterclaim because the company was impecunious and ordering security would stifle the counterclaim.
19/3/14
APEX GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LTD v FI CALL LTD [2014] EWHC 779 (Ch)
Security for costs would not be ordered where issues giving rise to a cross-claim could not be separated from the original claim so that an order that the claimants provide security for costs would effectively be giving the defendants security for the costs of their own claim.
4/2/13
VERSLOT DREDGING BV v HDI GERLING VESICHERUNG AG [2013] EWHC 658 (Comm)
Order for security for costs requiring a bank guarantee from a first class London bank varied to allow a deed of indemnity from a creditworthy insurance company.
17/12/12
OLYMPIC AIRLINES SA (in liquidation) v ACG ACQUISITION XX LLC [2012] EWCA Civ 1659
As conditions on the grant of permission to appeal, the appellant, a Greek state-owned company in liquidation, was ordered to provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal, and to comply with an interim payment order in respect of the respondent's first instance costs.
5/12/12
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC v HICKS [2012] EWCA Civ 1665
On a hearing for permission to appeal listed with the appeal to follow if permission was granted, the Court of Appeal can order a stay pending provision of security for the costs of the appeal under CPR r 3.1.
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer