Stunt v Associated Newspapers Limited [2019] EWHC 511 (QB) (19 February 2019)

Stunt v Associated Newspapers Limited [2019] EWHC 511 (QB) (19 February 2019)

The claimant failed to provide a proper address in the claim form and has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make enforcement of a costs order difficult. Both threshold conditions under CPR 25.13(2)(e) and (g) are satisfied. It is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs, especially given the unexplained asset realisations and financial instability, and the existence of a restraint order does not preclude such an order.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 511
Parties
Claimant/respondent: James Stunt; Defendant/applicant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application in Ongoing Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against the claimant
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection Act 1998, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Practice Direction 16, CPR 25.12 and 25.13
Civil Procedure Media Law Data Protection Harassment Security for Costs Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Act 1998 Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Stunt

Claimant/respondent

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application in Ongoing Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to provide a proper address in the claim form under CPR 16 and Practice Direction 16
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult (CPR 25.13(2)(g))
  3. 3 Whether it is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide a proper address in the claim form and has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make enforcement of a costs order difficult. Both threshold conditions under CPR 25.13(2)(e) and (g) are satisfied. It is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs, especially given the unexplained asset realisations and financial instability, and the existence of a restraint order does not preclude such an order.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against the claimant

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for defendant's costs by paying £460,000 into court within a specified period, without prejudice to the restraint order and without authorising any variation of that order.
  • Further proceedings stayed until security is provided.