Love & Care Ltd v Kiernan & Ors [2005] EWHC 2180 (Ch) (13 October 2005)

Love & Care Ltd v Kiernan & Ors [2005] EWHC 2180 (Ch) (13 October 2005)

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the Estate, though joined as a defendant, chose to make a positive case and could have adopted a passive role; the claim against the Estate was not substantive, and the application in substance sought security against a defendant, which is not appropriate.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2180 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Love & Care Limited; First Defendant: Kevin Louis Kiernan; Second Defendant: Valerie Turcsi; Third Defendant: Pamela Harness (personal representative of the Estate of Jack Malcolm Harness Deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Unconscionable Bargain, Undue Influence, Leasehold Disputes, Land Registration
Civil Procedure Property Law Security for Costs Unconscionable Bargain Undue Influence Leasehold Disputes Land Registration

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Love & Care Limited

Claimant

Kevin Louis Kiernan

First Defendant

Valerie Turcsi

Second Defendant

Pamela Harness (personal representative of the Estate of Jack Malcolm Harness Deceased)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be ordered to provide security for costs to the estate defendants under CPR 25.13 and s.726(1) Companies Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the lease was an unconscionable bargain and the result of undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the Estate, though joined as a defendant, chose to make a positive case and could have adopted a passive role; the claim against the Estate was not substantive, and the application in substance sought security against a defendant, which is not appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed