Relational LLC v Hodges

Relational LLC v Hodges

The appeal is dismissed. Security for costs should not be ordered against a foreign claimant merely because of their residence or the availability of set-off in the enforcing jurisdiction. To do so would be discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The offered security of £25,000 for the additional costs of enforcement abroad is sufficient and justified under Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Relational LLC; Defendant/appellant: Robert Adrian Hodges
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Security for Costs in Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Non Discrimination Under ECHR, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Set Off in Enforcement Proceedings
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Security for Costs Non Discrimination Under ECHR Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Set Off in Enforcement Proceedings

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

Parties

Relational LLC

Claimant/respondent

Robert Adrian Hodges

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision on Security for Costs in Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign claimant seeking to enforce a US judgment in England
  2. 2 Whether set-off of costs against the foreign judgment constitutes an obstacle to enforcement justifying security for costs
  3. 3 Whether ordering security for costs would be discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed. Security for costs should not be ordered against a foreign claimant merely because of their residence or the availability of set-off in the enforcing jurisdiction. To do so would be discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR. The offered security of £25,000 for the additional costs of enforcement abroad is sufficient and justified under Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No additional security for costs ordered beyond the £25,000 offered by the claimant
  • Costs to follow the event