Simms v Carr [2008] EWHC 1030 (Ch) (07 February 2008)

Simms v Carr [2008] EWHC 1030 (Ch) (07 February 2008)

There was no material change of circumstances or new facts relevant to the exercise of discretion for security for costs; the discharge of the freezing order did not harm Carr and was not material to the original order. The Master had no power to revoke his own earlier order in these circumstances. The appeal is allowed and the original security for costs order stands un-revoked.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1030 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/eighth Defendant: Simms; Respondent/claimant: Carr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Revocation of Security for Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; revocation of security for costs order set aside.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Revocation of Orders, Material Change of Circumstances, Solicitors' Duties, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Security for Costs Revocation of Orders Material Change of Circumstances Solicitors' Duties Freezing 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simms

Appellant/eighth Defendant

Carr

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Revocation of Security for Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master had power under CPR to revoke his own earlier order for security for costs
  2. 2 Whether there was a material change of circumstances or facts not available at the time of the original order
  3. 3 Whether the discharge of the freezing order was relevant to the exercise of discretion for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material change of circumstances or new facts relevant to the exercise of discretion for security for costs; the discharge of the freezing order did not harm Carr and was not material to the original order. The Master had no power to revoke his own earlier order in these circumstances. The appeal is allowed and the original security for costs order stands un-revoked.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; revocation of security for costs order set aside.

Orders

  • The original security for costs order in favour of Simms stands un-revoked.
  • Action against Simms to be struck out unless security for costs is provided.