Beriwala v Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 6 (Ch) (06 January 2021)

Beriwala v Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 6 (Ch) (06 January 2021)

The Defendants failed to establish threshold conditions under CPR 25.13(2)(e) and (g) for security for costs. The omission of the apartment number was a minor technical breach causing no prejudice, and there was no evidence of asset dissipation by the Claimant. Even if threshold conditions were met, the delay in application and the mirrored nature of the counterclaim weighed strongly against granting security as a matter of discretion.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 6 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Neha Beriwala; First Defendant: Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Limited; Second Defendant: Mr Joga Khangure
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Pre Trial, Post Disclosure, Post Witness Statements, Before Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Declaratory Relief, Share Ownership Dispute, Counterclaim, Delay in Application, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Declaratory Relief Share Ownership Dispute Counterclaim Delay in Application Enforcement of Costs Orders

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Neha Beriwala

Claimant

Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Limited

First Defendant

Mr Joga Khangure

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Pre Trial, Post Disclosure, Post Witness Statements, Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether threshold conditions for security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(e) and (g) are met
  2. 2 Whether it is just to exercise discretion to order security for costs
  3. 3 Impact of delay and counterclaim on security for costs application

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to establish threshold conditions under CPR 25.13(2)(e) and (g) for security for costs. The omission of the apartment number was a minor technical breach causing no prejudice, and there was no evidence of asset dissipation by the Claimant. Even if threshold conditions were met, the delay in application and the mirrored nature of the counterclaim weighed strongly against granting security as a matter of discretion.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' application for security for costs is refused
  • Parties invited to agree form of order; consequentials hearing to be listed if necessary