My Protection Guru Limited v Lifesearch Partners Limited

My Protection Guru Limited v Lifesearch Partners Limited

LifeSearch is not entitled to the claimed costs relating to the confidentiality order as the consent order provided for 'no order as to costs' in respect of both parties' applications and the process was for LifeSearch's benefit. MPG failed to provide sufficient evidence that an order for security for costs would stifle the claim; therefore, further security for costs is appropriate, to be staged and with the option for MPG to provide ATE insurance.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: My Protection Guru Limited; Defendant/applicant: LifeSearch Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (insurance Commission Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications (costs and Security for Costs)
Outcome
LifeSearch's application for costs dismissed; application for further security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Breach of Contract, Commission Disputes
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Confidentiality Orders Security for Costs Costs Orders Breach of Contract Commission Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

My Protection Guru Limited

Claimant/respondent

LifeSearch Partners Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (insurance Commission Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications (costs and Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether LifeSearch is entitled to costs relating to the CPR 5.4C confidentiality order
  2. 2 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against MPG

Ratio Decidendi

LifeSearch is not entitled to the claimed costs relating to the confidentiality order as the consent order provided for 'no order as to costs' in respect of both parties' applications and the process was for LifeSearch's benefit. MPG failed to provide sufficient evidence that an order for security for costs would stifle the claim; therefore, further security for costs is appropriate, to be staged and with the option for MPG to provide ATE insurance.

Court Disposition

LifeSearch's application for costs dismissed; application for further security for costs granted.

Orders

  • No order as to costs for the CPR 5.4C confidentiality application (all parts dismissed)
  • MPG to provide security for costs in the total sum of £575,147, staged as follows: £288,497 by 17 November 2023, £76,500 by 1 April 2024, £210,150 by 1 August 2024, or by entering into a suitable ATE insurance policy.