Shipshape Holdings Ltd v Stafford & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1767 (19 November 2002)

Shipshape Holdings Ltd v Stafford & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1767 (19 November 2002)

Permission to appeal refused because the case did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor was there any other compelling reason. The judge was entitled to order security for costs given Shipshape's impecuniosity and the speculative nature of the claim. There was no unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1767
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Shipshape Holdings Limited; Defendant/respondent: Paul Stafford; Defendant/respondent: Richard Osborn-Kirby
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) From Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Directors' Fiduciary Duties, Impecunious Litigants, Permission to Appeal, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Directors' Fiduciary Duties Impecunious Litigants Permission to Appeal Strike Out Applications

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

Parties

Shipshape Holdings Limited

Claimant/applicant

Paul Stafford

Defendant/respondent

Richard Osborn-Kirby

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (second Appeal) From Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted under CPR 52.13 as a second appeal
  2. 2 Whether the order for security for costs was properly made
  3. 3 Whether the claim had any real prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal refused because the case did not raise an important point of principle or practice, nor was there any other compelling reason. The judge was entitled to order security for costs given Shipshape's impecuniosity and the speculative nature of the claim. There was no unfairness or breach of Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Security for costs order stands