Gallaher International Ltd v Tlais Enterprises Ltd (No. 2) [2007] EWHC 464 (Comm) (08 March 2007)

Gallaher International Ltd v Tlais Enterprises Ltd (No. 2) [2007] EWHC 464 (Comm) (08 March 2007)

The court found that further security for costs was justified as the counterclaim involved substantial issues and sums, GIL was not over-secured, and TEL had not demonstrated that an order would stifle its counterclaim. The court also held that Mr Goel's expert evidence was admissible despite his employment by Gallaher Limited, as sufficient steps had been taken to ensure his independence and the mere fact of employment did not disqualify him.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 464 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant/applicant: Gallaher International Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent: Tlais Enterprises Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent: Ptolemeos Tlais
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation (claim and Counterclaim) / Pre Trial Review (ptr) Applications
Outcome
Applications determined: further security for costs ordered; application to debar expert refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Expert Evidence, Counterclaims, Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Expert Evidence Counterclaims Litigation Funding

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gallaher International Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant/applicant

Tlais Enterprises Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent

Ptolemeos Tlais

Defendant/part 20 Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation (claim and Counterclaim) / Pre Trial Review (ptr) Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against TEL for GIL's costs of defending the counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the expert evidence of Mr Rajiv Goel should be declared inadmissible and he be debarred from giving evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that further security for costs was justified as the counterclaim involved substantial issues and sums, GIL was not over-secured, and TEL had not demonstrated that an order would stifle its counterclaim. The court also held that Mr Goel's expert evidence was admissible despite his employment by Gallaher Limited, as sufficient steps had been taken to ensure his independence and the mere fact of employment did not disqualify him.

Court Disposition

Applications determined: further security for costs ordered; application to debar expert refused.

Orders

  • TEL to provide additional security for GIL's costs of the counterclaim up to and including trial in the sum of £400,000 within 28 days.
  • Application to declare Mr Goel's expert evidence inadmissible and to debar him from giving evidence is refused.