Infinity Distribution Ltd v The Khan Partnership LLP [2020] EWHC 1657 (Ch) (26 June 2020)

Infinity Distribution Ltd v The Khan Partnership LLP [2020] EWHC 1657 (Ch) (26 June 2020)

The master's decision not to consider the amount and potential recoverability of the premium for the deed of indemnity as a relevant factor was correct, as the relevant questions were whether the deed provided adequate security and whether it prevented the claimant from pursuing its claim. The defendant's potential liability for the premium was not relevant to those questions.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1657 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Infinity Distribution Ltd (in administration); Defendant/appellant: The Khan Partnership LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Regarding Adequacy of Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Deed of Indemnity, Costs Recovery, ATE Insurance
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Deed of Indemnity Costs Recovery ATE Insurance

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infinity Distribution Ltd (in administration)

Claimant/respondent

The Khan Partnership LLP

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Regarding Adequacy of Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amount and potential recoverability of the premium for a deed of indemnity is a relevant factor in determining the adequacy of security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the master's order approving the deed of indemnity as adequate security was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The master's decision not to consider the amount and potential recoverability of the premium for the deed of indemnity as a relevant factor was correct, as the relevant questions were whether the deed provided adequate security and whether it prevented the claimant from pursuing its claim. The defendant's potential liability for the premium was not relevant to those questions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The master's order approving the deed of indemnity as adequate and acceptable security for costs stands.