De Beer v Kanaar & Co (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1318 (9 August 2001)

De Beer v Kanaar & Co (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1318 (9 August 2001)

The court held that CPR 25.13(2)(a)(ii) is directed at the ordinary residence of the claimant, not the location of assets. Jurisdiction to order security for costs exists where the claimant is not ordinarily resident in a Convention state, regardless of whether assets are held in a Convention state. The existence of assets in a Convention state does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order security for costs.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1318
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Hans David de Beer; Appellant/1st Defendant: Kanaar and Co (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Refusing Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction Under CPR 25.13, Enforcement of Judgments in Convention States
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules Jurisdiction Under CPR 25.13 Enforcement of Judgments in Convention States

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

Parties

Hans David de Beer

Respondent/claimant

Kanaar and Co (a firm)

Appellant/1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Refusing Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under CPR 25.13 to order security for costs against a claimant resident outside the jurisdiction but with assets in a Convention state
  2. 2 Whether the existence of assets in a Convention state precludes jurisdiction to order security for costs
  3. 3 Proper construction of CPR 25.13(2)(a)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that CPR 25.13(2)(a)(ii) is directed at the ordinary residence of the claimant, not the location of assets. Jurisdiction to order security for costs exists where the claimant is not ordinarily resident in a Convention state, regardless of whether assets are held in a Convention state. The existence of assets in a Convention state does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Deputy High Court Judge set aside
  • Matter remitted for consideration of whether security for costs should be ordered and, if so, on what terms