The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling & Anor [2013] EWHC 1720 (QB) (19 June 2013)

The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling & Anor [2013] EWHC 1720 (QB) (19 June 2013)

The Deputy Master was not plainly wrong in ordering security for costs as the Claimant's case was not shown to have a high probability of success, the evidence of impecuniosity caused by Defendants was unclear, and the Claimant failed to demonstrate that security would stifle litigation. The exercise of discretion was within the reasonable ambit and justified.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1720
Parties
Claimant: The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd; 1st Defendant: Mr Cowling; 2nd Defendant: Mr Lawrence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Security for Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Fiduciary Duties, Breach of Duty, Impecuniosity, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Company Law Partnership Law Security for Costs Fiduciary Duties Breach of Duty Impecuniosity Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd

Claimant

Mr Cowling

1st Defendant

Mr Lawrence

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Security for Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in ordering security for costs against the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the merits of the Claimant's case justified refusal of security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's impecuniosity was caused by Defendants' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master was not plainly wrong in ordering security for costs as the Claimant's case was not shown to have a high probability of success, the evidence of impecuniosity caused by Defendants was unclear, and the Claimant failed to demonstrate that security would stifle litigation. The exercise of discretion was within the reasonable ambit and justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Security for costs order of £240,000 upheld
  • Action stayed until security is given