Relational LLC v Hodges [2011] EWCA Civ 774 (07 July 2011)

Relational LLC v Hodges [2011] EWCA Civ 774 (07 July 2011)

The Court held that the availability of set-off in the US courts does not constitute a substantial obstacle to enforcement of an English costs order, and that ordering security for costs in these circumstances would be discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and no further security for costs was ordered beyond the amount already offered by the claimant.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 774
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Relational LLC; Defendant/appellant: Robert Adrian Hodges
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Non Discrimination Under ECHR, Set Off in Enforcement Proceedings
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Non Discrimination Under ECHR Set Off in Enforcement Proceedings

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

Parties

Relational LLC

Claimant/respondent

Robert Adrian Hodges

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign claimant seeking to enforce a US judgment in England
  2. 2 Whether set-off of a US judgment against English costs order constitutes a substantial obstacle to enforcement justifying security for costs
  3. 3 Whether ordering security for costs in these circumstances would be discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the availability of set-off in the US courts does not constitute a substantial obstacle to enforcement of an English costs order, and that ordering security for costs in these circumstances would be discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and no further security for costs was ordered beyond the amount already offered by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No further security for costs ordered beyond the amount offered by the claimant (£25,000)