Seakom Ltd & Anor v Knowledgepool Group Ltd

Seakom Ltd & Anor v Knowledgepool Group Ltd

The court found that the Appellants are unlikely to be able to pay the Respondent’s costs if ordered, that the second Appellant is outside the jurisdiction, and that the Appellants have taken steps making enforcement of a costs order difficult. The Appellants failed to show that an order for security would stifle the appeal. It is just and proportionate to order security for costs in the sum of £50,000.

Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Seakom Limited; Claimant / Appellant: Seakom International Limited; Defendant / Respondent: Knowledgepool Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interpretation of Contracts, Jurisdiction, Corporate Insolvency
Civil Procedure Contract Law Security for Costs Interpretation of Contracts Jurisdiction Corporate Insolvency

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seakom Limited

Claimant / Appellant

Seakom International Limited

Claimant / Appellant

Knowledgepool Group Limited

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent is entitled to security for costs under CPR 25.13
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants would be unable to pay the Respondent’s costs if ordered to do so
  3. 3 Whether the Appellants have taken steps making enforcement of a costs order difficult

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Appellants are unlikely to be able to pay the Respondent’s costs if ordered, that the second Appellant is outside the jurisdiction, and that the Appellants have taken steps making enforcement of a costs order difficult. The Appellants failed to show that an order for security would stifle the appeal. It is just and proportionate to order security for costs in the sum of £50,000.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Appellants to provide security for costs in the sum of £50,000 under CPR 25.15
  • Appellants to pay Respondent’s costs of the application assessed at £16,000