Tag Archives: Security for Costs

SECOND APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS (THIS TIME)

In Holyoake -v- Candy [2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee decided that a second application for security for costs was not an abuse of process.  The judgment reviews the law relating to second applications and abuse in detail. It contains some important lessons for anyone considering withdrawing an application, but reserving the right to […]

PROVING THINGS 38: PROVING INABILITY TO PAY ON A SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATION

A party opposing an application for security costs sometimes has to argue that the ordering of security would “stifle” a genuine claim.  This means giving evidence as to that party’s inability to pay.  This test was considered by Mr Richard Salter QC in Eminent Energy Limited -v- KRassik Ou [2016] EWHC 2585 (Comm). It is […]

HIGH COURT OVERTURNS DECISION TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: NON-COMPLIANCE CANNOT AMOUNT TO “GOOD REASON”

  In Pittville Ltd -v- Hunters & Frankau Limited [2016] EWHC 2683 Mr Justice Snowden overturned the decision of a Deputy Master granting relief from sanctions.   The judgment contains an important consideration of the question of “good reasons” for non-compliance. It also contains strictures against varying earlier court orders. “What is a “good reason” […]

CLAIMANT MUST REVEAL IDENTITY OF THIRD PARTY FUNDERS: HIGH COURT DECISION

In Wall -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC [2016] EWHC 2460 (Comm) (Mr Andrew Baker QC sitting as a High Court Judge) the claimant was ordered to reveal the identity of third party funders. KEY POINTS The court has power to order a party to disclose the identify of third party funders. The exercise […]

THIS COSTS BUDGETING THING – IT IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT: WELL THINK AGAIN

There are some important observations made by Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman Limited [2016] EWHC 2315 (Ch) in relation to both costs budgeting and security for costs. KEY POINTS There is no duty on a party applying for security for costs to prepare a detailed costs budget. However it is […]

DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANT’S SOLVENCY: ADVERSE ASSUMPTIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE

The case of Sarpd Oil International Limited -v- Addax Energy SA [2016] EWCA Civ 120 related to the practice of awarding security for costs by an overseas company which did not have to file accounts. The case raises other points here I want to look at the overriding objective and the presumptions the court can […]

THE “URGENT NEED FOR COMMERCIAL PRACTITIONERS TO BRING A SENSE OF PROPORTION” TO LITIGATION: EVIDENCE NEEDED IN WHEN ARGUING SECURITY FOR COSTS “STIFLES” AN ACTION.

In Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc -v- Baglan Zhunus [2015] EWHC 996 Mr Justice Walker had strong words to say, and constructive guidance to give, in relation to some aspects of commercial litigation.  The case further serves as a reminder of the nature of the evidence that a party has to adduce when opposing an application for […]