COST BITES 360: THE COURT DOES HAVE POWER TO ORDER SECURITY FOR COSTS IN A SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: HOWEVER IT MADE AN ORDER FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT INSTEAD
Here we have a case that it about the complex “fall out” following funding of litigation by litigation funders. The claimant sought an assessment of costs on the basis that it may have an interest in the sums being sought….
COST BITES 309: ISSUES OF SECURITY FOR COSTS CONSIDERED IN A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT : WITH IMPORTANT POINTERS HERE FOR ALL SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATIONS: “I AM NOT PREPARED TO DECIDE THIS APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF INFERENCE AND CONJECTURE”)
We are looking at an application relating to security for costs in the context of a solicitor and own client assessment. However, as the heading indicates, there are more general lesson here for all litigators. In particular the need to…
CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO SECURITY FOR COSTS: APPLICATION BY A THIRD PARTY WAS NOT A “NEW CLAIM”
Normally only a defendant can apply for security for costs. In this case the claimant applied for security for costs when a third party made an application. The question for the court was – in these circumstances can the applicant…
SECURITY FOR COSTS CANNOT BE GIVEN BY BITCOIN: HARD CASH RULES THE DAY
In Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association for BSV & Ors (Rev 1) [2022] EWHC 141 (Ch) Master Clark rejected an application that security for costs be given by Bitcoin. The fluctuating values of Bitcoin would not provide the defendants…
ANOTHER ROUND IN A LONG-RUNNING SOLICITOR-CLIENT COSTS DISPUTE: JUDGE REFUSES APPLICATION FOR A STAY AND FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS.
In Edwards & Ors v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd [2021] EWHC B19 (Costs) Costs Judge Rowley considered several procedural issues in relation to ongoing solicitor and own-client assessments. THE CASE Some 134 cases are being brought by Clear Legal…
“… 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…
THE COURT CAN (AND IN THIS CASE SHOULD) ORDER ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR COSTS
I am grateful to solicitor Shimon Goldwater for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Moulder in Mayr -v- CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2018] EWHC 3093 (Comm). It relates to the principles to be applied when…
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…
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…
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…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.