Primafacio Limited v Tres Canopia Limited & Anor

Primafacio Limited v Tres Canopia Limited & Anor

The similar fact evidence is logically probative and its admission may enable the court to reach a just decision. The increase in time and cost, while significant, is not disproportionate to its probative value and does not render the trial process unfair. The application to strike out is therefore dismissed. There is reason to believe the First Defendant will be unable to pay costs if ordered, and the Second Defendant has not shown it is a good mark for costs. Security for costs is therefore ordered.

Parties
Claimant: Primafacio Limited; First Defendant: Tres Canopia Limited; Second Defendant: Euroenergy Investments Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial / First Case Management Conference (cmc); Ruling on Application to Strike Out Part of Reply to Defence to Counterclaim and Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed; application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Strike Out Applications, Similar Fact Evidence, Share Purchase Agreements, Corporate Guarantees
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Strike Out Applications Similar Fact Evidence Share Purchase Agreements Corporate Guarantees

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Primafacio Limited

Claimant

Tres Canopia Limited

First Defendant

Euroenergy Investments Corporation

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / First Case Management Conference (cmc); Ruling on Application to Strike Out Part of Reply to Defence to Counterclaim and Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether similar fact evidence should be admitted or struck out from the Reply to Defence to Counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant should provide security for costs of the Counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The similar fact evidence is logically probative and its admission may enable the court to reach a just decision. The increase in time and cost, while significant, is not disproportionate to its probative value and does not render the trial process unfair. The application to strike out is therefore dismissed. There is reason to believe the First Defendant will be unable to pay costs if ordered, and the Second Defendant has not shown it is a good mark for costs. Security for costs is therefore ordered.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed; application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Similar fact evidence in the Reply to Defence to Counterclaim is admitted, subject to possible renewal of the application at or before trial.
  • First Defendant to provide security for costs in stages, with terms to be agreed by the parties.