CIBC Mellon Trust Company & Ors v Stolzenberg & Ors

Given the Defendants' repeated and deliberate non-compliance with court orders, the risk of unenforceability of costs, and the availability of third party funding, there are compelling reasons to impose conditions on the appeal and order security for costs. The sums ordered are proportionate and do not stifle the appeal.

Parties: Claimant/appellant: CIBC Mellon Trust Company & Ors; Respondent/defendant: Stolzenberg & Ors
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 13 February 2004
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs and Conditions on Appeal
Outcome: Application granted in part
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Conditions on Appeal, Enforcement of Judgments, Third Party Funding

Civil Procedure Security for Costs Conditions on Appeal Enforcement of Judgments Third Party Funding

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

CIBC Mellon Trust Company & Ors

Claimant/appellant

Stolzenberg & Ors

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs and Conditions on Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether security for costs and conditions should be imposed on the Defendants' appeal
2 Quantum of security for costs
3 Whether past costs should be paid as a condition of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

Defendants to provide security for costs of the appeal in the sum of £450,000.
Defendants to pay £600,000 into court in respect of past costs, being £700,000 less £100,000 already paid.