Apollo Ventures Co Ltd v Manchanda & Ors

Apollo Ventures Co Ltd v Manchanda & Ors

Security for costs is ordered as the Claimant failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure and did not prove that the order would stifle its claim; ATE insurance does not reduce quantum absent enforceable agreement; application for increased fortification is refused due to delay and discretionary factors.

Parties
Claimant: Apollo Ventures Co. Limited; First Defendant: Surinder Singh Manchanda; Second Defendant: Gurmukh Singh Manchanda; Third Defendant: Gurbaksh Kaur Manchanda; Fifth Defendant: Gursev Singh Manchanda; Sixth Defendant: Simrat Kaur Manchanda; Seventh Defendant: 4G Properties Limited; Eighth Defendant: HKM Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Ruling on Applications for Security for Costs and Increase in Fortification
Outcome
Security for costs application granted; increase in fortification application refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Worldwide Freezing Order, Fortification of Undertaking, Impecuniosity, Jurisdiction, ATE Insurance
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Worldwide Freezing Order Fortification of Undertaking Impecuniosity Jurisdiction ATE Insurance

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

Parties

Apollo Ventures Co. Limited

Claimant

Surinder Singh Manchanda

First Defendant

Gurmukh Singh Manchanda

Second Defendant

Gurbaksh Kaur Manchanda

Third Defendant

Gursev Singh Manchanda

Fifth Defendant

Simrat Kaur Manchanda

Sixth Defendant

4G Properties Limited

Seventh Defendant

HKM Investments Limited

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Ruling on Applications for Security for Costs and Increase in Fortification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign, allegedly impecunious claimant
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of security should be reduced due to ATE insurance
  3. 3 Whether fortification of the undertaking in damages under the WFO should be increased

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered as the Claimant failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure and did not prove that the order would stifle its claim; ATE insurance does not reduce quantum absent enforceable agreement; application for increased fortification is refused due to delay and discretionary factors.

Court Disposition

Security for costs application granted; increase in fortification application refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £500,000.
  • Application for increased fortification of undertaking in damages refused.