Longstaff International Ltd v Baker McKenzie [2004] EWHC 1852 (Ch) (16 June 2004)

Longstaff International Ltd v Baker McKenzie [2004] EWHC 1852 (Ch) (16 June 2004)

Security for costs was ordered because Longstaff, though having valuable assets, was illiquid and unable to pay costs promptly if ordered; an unsecured undertaking from its subsidiary Redwell was not acceptable security.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1852 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Longstaff International Limited; Defendant/applicant: Baker McKenzie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Company Law, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Company Law 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Longstaff International Limited

Claimant/respondent

Baker McKenzie

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a claimant company with substantial assets but insufficient liquidity
  2. 2 Whether an undertaking from a subsidiary company is sufficient security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because Longstaff, though having valuable assets, was illiquid and unable to pay costs promptly if ordered; an unsecured undertaking from its subsidiary Redwell was not acceptable security.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Longstaff to provide security for Baker & McKenzie's costs in the amount requested, by payment into court, bank guarantee acceptable to Baker & McKenzie, or other form acceptable to Baker & McKenzie, with liberty to apply as to acceptability.
  • Failing provision of security, Longstaff's claim will be dismissed.