Pannone LLP v Aardvark Digital Ltd [2013] EWHC 686 (Ch) (26 March 2013)

Pannone LLP v Aardvark Digital Ltd [2013] EWHC 686 (Ch) (26 March 2013)

The order for security for costs must be set aside because the evidence established that the Defendant could not raise the required funds, and an order for security would stifle the Counterclaim, infringing the right of access to court under Article 6 ECHR. The Counterclaim was an independent claim, but the justice of the case required that no security be ordered where it would prevent the claim from being heard.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 686 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Pannone LLP; Defendant and Appellant: Aardvark Digital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order for security for costs set aside.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Counterclaim, Access to Justice, Article 6 ECHR, Professional Negligence, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Security for Costs Counterclaim Access to Justice Article 6 ECHR Costs 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pannone LLP

Claimant and Respondent

Aardvark Digital Limited

Defendant and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was just to order security for costs against the Defendant in respect of its Counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the Counterclaim was in substance an independent claim or merely a defence
  3. 3 Whether an order for security would stifle the Counterclaim and infringe Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The order for security for costs must be set aside because the evidence established that the Defendant could not raise the required funds, and an order for security would stifle the Counterclaim, infringing the right of access to court under Article 6 ECHR. The Counterclaim was an independent claim, but the justice of the case required that no security be ordered where it would prevent the claim from being heard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order for security for costs set aside.

Orders

  • Order for security for costs made by District Judge set aside
  • No order for security for costs to be made against Defendant in respect of Counterclaim