Milne v Open Access Finance Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 671 (Ch) (23 February 2024)

Milne v Open Access Finance Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 671 (Ch) (23 February 2024)

The first defendant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant had taken steps in relation to his assets making enforcement of a costs order objectively difficult; the jurisdictional gateway for security for costs under CPR r 25.13(2)(g) was not satisfied.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 671 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Jonathan Milne; First Defendant: Open Access Finance Limited; Second Defendant: Mr Marek Szymanski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Post Case Management Conference, Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peer to Peer Lending, Asset Disclosure, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Financial Services Security for Costs Peer to Peer Lending Asset Disclosure 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Jonathan Milne

Claimant

Open Access Finance Limited

First Defendant

Mr Marek Szymanski

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Post Case Management Conference, Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to give a correct address in the claim form justifying security for costs under CPR r 25.13(2)(e)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult under CPR r 25.13(2)(g)

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant had taken steps in relation to his assets making enforcement of a costs order objectively difficult; the jurisdictional gateway for security for costs under CPR r 25.13(2)(g) was not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed