In Plus Group Ltd v Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 147 (6 February 2002)

In Plus Group Ltd v Pyke [2002] EWCA Civ 147 (6 February 2002)

Security for costs was ordered because there was reason to suppose the appellants could not pay the respondent's costs if the appeal failed, and there was no evidence the order would stifle the appeal or breach Article 6 ECHR. The burden of proof was on the appellants to show stifling, which they failed to do.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 147
Parties
Claimant/appellant: IN PLUS GROUP LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: JOHN ALBERT PYKE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Right of Appeal, Article 6 ECHR, Administration Order, Burden of Proof for Stifling Claim
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Security for Costs Right of Appeal Article 6 ECHR Administration Order Burden of Proof for Stifling Claim

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IN PLUS GROUP LIMITED

Claimant/appellant

JOHN ALBERT PYKE

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against appellants in financial difficulty
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle the appeal and breach Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Effect of administration order on ability to order security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because there was reason to suppose the appellants could not pay the respondent's costs if the appeal failed, and there was no evidence the order would stifle the appeal or breach Article 6 ECHR. The burden of proof was on the appellants to show stifling, which they failed to do.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs allowed in part.

Orders

  • Appellants to pay £5,000 into court by way of security by 4.00 p.m. next Monday, failing which the appeal will be stayed.
  • Appellants to pay respondent's costs in the amount of the statement of costs before the court.