“… THE JUDGE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY EITHER SIDE WAS PROPOSING TO SPEND LARGE SUMS ON LITIGATION THAT APPEARED BOTH FUTILE TO BRING AND SENSELESS TO DEFEND”: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON SECURITY FOR COSTS
The decision of the Court of Appeal in Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1242 is about security for costs. The “mysteries” as to why the action was being brought and defended, played…
COURT DID NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO POSTPONE THE PAYMENT OF COSTS: THE CLAIMANT COULD NOT OBTAIN SECURITY FOR COSTS BY OBTAINING AN ORDER DEFERRING PAYMENT OF COSTS
There is an interesting decision today in JSC VTB Bank v Skurikhin & Ors [2019] EWHC 69 (Comm), Andrew Henshaw QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The court refused to delay payment of costs to a defendant…
PROVING THINGS 128: CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE NOT FULL, CLEAR, FRANK OR UNEQUIVOCAL IN RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
In Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors [2018] EWHC 2503 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare was critical of the quality of the evidence that the respondent adduced in response to an application for security for costs. THE CASE The defendants sought an…
AFTER THE EVENT INSURANCE DOES NOT PROHIBIT AN ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
In Premier Motorauctions Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1872 the Court of Appeal decided that the existence of an after the event insurance policy to cover legal expenses did not prohibit a court from ordering…
THIRD PARTY FUNDING: YOU WANT THE PROFITS YOU TAKE THE RISKS: EXCALIBUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
In Excalibur Ventures LLC -v- Texas Keystone LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1144 the Court of Appeal confirmed that commercial funders are liable to indemnify on the indemnity costs basis. “I can see no principled basis upon which the funder can…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AFTER BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED
In Sinclair -V- Dorsey & Whitney (Europe) LLP [2015] EWHC 3888 (Comm) Mr Justice refused an application from relief from sanctions. (I am grateful to Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd for sending me a copy of the transcript). “The starting point is…
You must be logged in to post a comment.