Rugby Group Ltd. v Proforce Recruit Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 1444 (04 November 2005)

Rugby Group Ltd. v Proforce Recruit Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 1444 (04 November 2005)

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that ProForce is unable to pay the costs of the appeal; therefore, security for costs is refused. However, ProForce must pay an interim sum on account of costs ordered below by a specified date, failing which the appeal will be dismissed, as it is unacceptable for an appellant to pursue an appeal while disobeying court orders for costs.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1444
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Rugby Group Ltd; Defendant/appellant: ProForce Recruit Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; order for payment of interim costs by appellant as condition for proceeding with appeal.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interpretation of Contract Terms, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Contract Law Security for Costs Interpretation of Contract Terms Enforcement of Costs Orders Stay of Execution

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

Parties

The Rugby Group Ltd

Claimant/respondent

ProForce Recruit Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Interlocutory Applications Pending Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ProForce should provide security for costs of the appeal under CPR 25.13(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether ProForce should be ordered to pay the costs ordered below as a condition of proceeding with the appeal
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'preferred supplier' in the contract

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that ProForce is unable to pay the costs of the appeal; therefore, security for costs is refused. However, ProForce must pay an interim sum on account of costs ordered below by a specified date, failing which the appeal will be dismissed, as it is unacceptable for an appellant to pursue an appeal while disobeying court orders for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed; order for payment of interim costs by appellant as condition for proceeding with appeal.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed.
  • Appellant (ProForce) to pay an interim sum on account of costs in the sum of £35,000 by 14 November, failing which the appeal to stand dismissed.