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 residential or business address in the claim form, breaching CPR 16 and Practice Direction 16. The claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets, including asset encumbrances, asset realisations, and is subject to a restraint order, all of which 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 movements and lack of detailed evidence from the claimant as to his overall asset position.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 511 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: James Stunt; Defendant/applicant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against the claimant in the sum of £460,000; summary assessment of costs in the sum of £36,000 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, CPR 25.13, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Civil Procedure Media Law Data Protection Harassment Security for Costs Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Act 1998 Protection From Harassment Act 1997 +4 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Stunt

Claimant/respondent

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Security for Costs Application / 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 under 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 residential or business address in the claim form, breaching CPR 16 and Practice Direction 16. The claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets, including asset encumbrances, asset realisations, and is subject to a restraint order, all of which 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 movements and lack of detailed evidence from the claimant as to his overall asset position.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against the claimant in the sum of £460,000; summary assessment of costs in the sum of £36,000 ordered against the claimant.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for defendant's costs by paying £460,000 into court within specified time.
  • All further proceedings stayed until security is given.