Santina Ltd v Rare Art (London) Ltd (Trading As Koopman Rare Art) (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 807 (Ch) (06 April 2023)

Santina Ltd v Rare Art (London) Ltd (Trading As Koopman Rare Art) (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 807 (Ch) (06 April 2023)

The Deputy Master exercised his discretion properly in granting security for costs and in the amount ordered, considering all relevant factors. The freezing order was properly granted as Rare Art had a costs order and a contingent right to further costs, and there was a real risk of dissipation. Full and frank disclosure was met. The court had jurisdiction to grant the freezing order in these circumstances.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 807 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Santina Limited; Defendant/applicant: Rare Art (London) Ltd (trading as Koopman Rare Art)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Appeal and Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs, Freezing Order)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; freezing order continued; directions for compliance and further proceedings given.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Freezing Injunctions, Appeals, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Freezing Injunctions Appeals 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santina Limited

Claimant/respondent

Rare Art (London) Ltd (trading as Koopman Rare Art)

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Appeal and Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs, Freezing Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in granting security for costs and in the amount ordered
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order was properly granted and should be continued
  3. 3 Whether there was full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application for the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master exercised his discretion properly in granting security for costs and in the amount ordered, considering all relevant factors. The freezing order was properly granted as Rare Art had a costs order and a contingent right to further costs, and there was a real risk of dissipation. Full and frank disclosure was met. The court had jurisdiction to grant the freezing order in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; freezing order continued; directions for compliance and further proceedings given.

Orders

  • Appeal against security for costs order dismissed.
  • Costs order of Deputy Master stands; further costs of appeal to Rare Art, to be summarily assessed and paid by Santina.