Vedatech Corporation v Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 356 (28 January 2002)

Vedatech Corporation v Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 356 (28 January 2002)

The judge erred in principle by failing to consider the lateness of the application for security for costs and the oppressive effect of requiring a large sum shortly before trial, which would effectively stifle the claim. The order was disproportionate and unjust.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 356
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Vedatech Corporation; Defendant/respondent: Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd & Anr (formerly known as Seagate Software IMG Ltd)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (security for Costs Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Proportionality, Article 6 ECHR, Discretionary Orders
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Proportionality Article 6 ECHR Discretionary Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vedatech Corporation

Claimant/appellant

Crystal Decisions (UK) Ltd & Anr (formerly known as Seagate Software IMG Ltd)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (security for Costs Order) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for further security for costs was oppressive and disproportionate given the stage of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion by not considering the lateness of the application and its effect on the claimant's ability to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in principle by failing to consider the lateness of the application for security for costs and the oppressive effect of requiring a large sum shortly before trial, which would effectively stifle the claim. The order was disproportionate and unjust.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order for security set aside
  • Claimant awarded costs of the appeal and the application for security for costs in the court below