Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2021] EWHC 2640 (Ch) (29 September 2021)

Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake & Anor [2021] EWHC 2640 (Ch) (29 September 2021)

The Brakes took steps in relation to their assets (removal of valuable furniture to an undisclosed location, dissipation or obfuscation of ownership of horses, and transfer of a valuable car) that objectively made enforcement of a costs order more difficult, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g). The application was not barred by res judicata or delay, and the evidence did not show that ordering security would stifle a genuine claim. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the sum of £200,000, to be paid within 14 days.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2640 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant (possession Proceedings): Axnoller Events Limited; Defendant (possession Proceedings) / Claimant (eviction Proceedings): Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Defendant (possession Proceedings) / Claimant (eviction Proceedings): Andrew Young Brake; Claimant (eviction Proceedings): Tom Conyers D'Arcy; Defendant (eviction Proceedings) / Applicant (security for Costs Application): The Chedington Court Estate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application (within Eviction Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Asset Dissipation, Trust Law, Delay in Applications
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts and Equity Security for Costs Enforcement of Costs Orders Asset Dissipation Trust Law Delay in Applications

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

Parties

Axnoller Events Limited

Claimant (possession Proceedings)

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Defendant (possession Proceedings) / Claimant (eviction Proceedings)

Andrew Young Brake

Defendant (possession Proceedings) / Claimant (eviction Proceedings)

Tom Conyers D'Arcy

Claimant (eviction Proceedings)

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Defendant (eviction Proceedings) / Applicant (security for Costs Application)

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application (within Eviction Proceedings) / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have taken steps in relation to their assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult under CPR 25.13(2)(g)
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs in the sum of £200,000
  3. 3 Whether the application is barred by res judicata or delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Brakes took steps in relation to their assets (removal of valuable furniture to an undisclosed location, dissipation or obfuscation of ownership of horses, and transfer of a valuable car) that objectively made enforcement of a costs order more difficult, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g). The application was not barred by res judicata or delay, and the evidence did not show that ordering security would stifle a genuine claim. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the sum of £200,000, to be paid within 14 days.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Claimants in the Eviction Proceedings (the Brakes) to provide security for costs in the sum of £200,000 within 14 days.