Aoun v Bahri & Anor [2002] EWHC 29 (Comm) (06 February, 2002)

Aoun v Bahri & Anor [2002] EWHC 29 (Comm) (06 February, 2002)

The claimant's sale of his Australian property constituted a step in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him, thereby satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g) and giving the court jurisdiction to order security for costs. The court exercised its discretion to order security due to the claimant's lack of readily available assets in the jurisdiction and the risk of unenforceability of a costs order.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 29 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Mohamad Ali Aoun; First Defendant: Hassan Bahri; Second Defendant: Costas Angelou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Ordinary Residence, Asset Disposition
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Jurisdiction Enforcement of Costs Orders Ordinary Residence Asset Disposition

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamad Ali Aoun

Claimant

Hassan Bahri

First Defendant

Costas Angelou

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be ordered to provide security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's change of address or asset disposition justifies security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's ordinary residence affects the application

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's sale of his Australian property constituted a step in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him, thereby satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g) and giving the court jurisdiction to order security for costs. The court exercised its discretion to order security due to the claimant's lack of readily available assets in the jurisdiction and the risk of unenforceability of a costs order.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Security for costs to be provided by the claimant in favour of both defendants; quantum and form of security to be determined after further submissions.