AP (UK) Ltd v West Midlands Fire & Civil Defence Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1917 (16 November 2001)

AP (UK) Ltd v West Midlands Fire & Civil Defence Authority [2001] EWCA Civ 1917 (16 November 2001)

Security for costs by way of a charge on real property is not appropriate in commercial cases unless a satisfactory explanation is given as to why traditional forms of security cannot be provided; in the absence of such explanation and given the inadequacy and uncertainty of the security offered, the judge was right to refuse it and to dismiss the claim for non-compliance. The refusal to extend time was a proper exercise of discretion given the lateness and speculative nature of the evidence. The costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1917
Parties
Appellant/claimant: AP (UK) Ltd; Respondent/defendant: West Midlands Fire & Civil Defence Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Her Honour Judge Caroline Alton in the Mercantile Court, Birmingham
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Form of Security, Extension of Time, Summary Judgment, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Form of Security Extension of Time Summary Judgment Costs Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AP (UK) Ltd

Appellant/claimant

West Midlands Fire & Civil Defence Authority

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Her Honour Judge Caroline Alton in the Mercantile Court, Birmingham

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs can appropriately be given by a charge on claimant's property rather than by payment into court or bank guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing an extension of time to provide security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in her order as to costs of a failed summary judgment application

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs by way of a charge on real property is not appropriate in commercial cases unless a satisfactory explanation is given as to why traditional forms of security cannot be provided; in the absence of such explanation and given the inadequacy and uncertainty of the security offered, the judge was right to refuse it and to dismiss the claim for non-compliance. The refusal to extend time was a proper exercise of discretion given the lateness and speculative nature of the evidence. The costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs to be assessed