Vadetech Corporation v Seagate Software Information Management Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1924 (29 November 2001)

Vadetech Corporation v Seagate Software Information Management Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1924 (29 November 2001)

The existing security and Part 36 offer provided sufficient protection to the defendant at this stage, and it was not just to require further security of £141,750. The judge was correct not to assess the merits of the parties' cases, and the split trial order was within his discretion. There was no evidence of oppression or hardship to the claimant.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1924
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Vadetech Corporation; Defendant/respondent: Seagate Software Information Management Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From Chancery Division Order on Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Foreign Claimants, Part 36 Offers, Split Trials, Case Management, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Foreign Claimants Part 36 Offers Split Trials Case Management Enforcement of 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vadetech Corporation

Claimant/applicant

Seagate Software Information Management Group Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal From Chancery Division Order on Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against a foreign claimant
  2. 2 Whether Part 36 offer should affect the amount of security for costs
  3. 3 Whether a split trial on liability and quantum was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The existing security and Part 36 offer provided sufficient protection to the defendant at this stage, and it was not just to require further security of £141,750. The judge was correct not to assess the merits of the parties' cases, and the split trial order was within his discretion. There was no evidence of oppression or hardship to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Paragraph 14 of Lightman J's order (further security for costs of £141,750) discharged
  • Paragraph 19 (costs) varied to make costs 'costs in the cause' before Lightman J