Sanita Limited v Rare Art (London) Ltd

Sanita Limited v Rare Art (London) Ltd

The Deputy Master's order for security for costs was a proper exercise of discretion, considering all relevant factors including delay and amount. The freezing order was properly granted as Rare Art had an accrued right to costs and a real risk of dissipation was established. There was no material non-disclosure or jurisdictional bar to the freezing order. The appeal against the security for costs order is dismissed, the freezing order is continued, and Santina is given a final opportunity to comply with the security order before automatic strike out.

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 (commercial) / Appeal and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; freezing order continued; conditional opportunity for claimant to comply with security for costs order; directions for further conduct given.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Freezing Injunctions, Costs Orders, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Freezing Injunctions Costs Orders Appeal Procedure

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 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 (commercial) / Appeal and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master's order for security for costs should be set aside on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte freezing order should be continued or set aside for non-disclosure or lack of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a freezing injunction are met in the context of a costs order and pending strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master's order for security for costs was a proper exercise of discretion, considering all relevant factors including delay and amount. The freezing order was properly granted as Rare Art had an accrued right to costs and a real risk of dissipation was established. There was no material non-disclosure or jurisdictional bar to the freezing order. The appeal against the security for costs order is dismissed, the freezing order is continued, and Santina is given a final opportunity to comply with the security order before automatic strike out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; freezing order continued; conditional opportunity for claimant to comply with security for costs order; directions for further conduct given.

Orders

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