Apollo Ventures Co Ltd v Manchanda & Ors [2020] EWHC 2206 (Comm) (12 August 2020)

Apollo Ventures Co Ltd v Manchanda & Ors [2020] EWHC 2206 (Comm) (12 August 2020)

Security for costs is ordered because the claimant is a foreign company with insufficient evidence of ability to pay costs, and the evidence does not establish that security would stifle the claim. No reduction for ATE insurance is made due to uncertainties in enforceability. The application for increased fortification is refused due to delay and potential stifling effect.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2206 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Apollo Ventures Co. Limited; First Defendant: Surinder Singh Manchanda; Second Defendant: Gurmukh Singh Manchanda; Third Defendant: Gurbaksh Kaur Manchanda; Fifth Defendant: Gursev Singh Manchanda; Sixth Defendant: Simrat Kaur Manchanda; Seventh Defendant: 4G Properties Limited; Eighth Defendant: HKM Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs and Fortification of Undertaking)
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; application for increased fortification refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Worldwide Freezing Order, Fortification of Undertaking, Jurisdiction, Company Law, Impecuniosity, ATE Insurance
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Worldwide Freezing Order Fortification of Undertaking Jurisdiction Company Law Impecuniosity +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apollo Ventures Co. Limited

Claimant

Surinder Singh Manchanda

First Defendant

Gurmukh Singh Manchanda

Second Defendant

Gurbaksh Kaur Manchanda

Third Defendant

Gursev Singh Manchanda

Fifth Defendant

Simrat Kaur Manchanda

Sixth Defendant

4G Properties Limited

Seventh Defendant

HKM Investments Limited

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs and Fortification of Undertaking)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign, allegedly impecunious claimant company
  2. 2 Whether the amount of security should be reduced due to ATE insurance
  3. 3 Whether fortification of the undertaking in damages under the WFO should be increased

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered because the claimant is a foreign company with insufficient evidence of ability to pay costs, and the evidence does not establish that security would stifle the claim. No reduction for ATE insurance is made due to uncertainties in enforceability. The application for increased fortification is refused due to delay and potential stifling effect.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; application for increased fortification refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £500,000.
  • Application for increased fortification of the undertaking in damages refused.