Al-Koronky & Anor v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1123 (28 July 2006)

Al-Koronky & Anor v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1123 (28 July 2006)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge was entitled to order security for costs because the claimants had not provided a full and candid account of their means, enforcement of a costs order in Sudan was shown on the evidence to be impractical, and the amount ordered was within the judge's discretion. The fresh evidence sought to be admitted could and should have been produced at first instance and was not admitted except for a limited admission against interest. There was no error of law or principle in the judge's approach.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1123
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Al-Koronky & Anor; Defendants/respondents: Time-Life Entertainment Group Limited & Anor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Interlocutory Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Enforcement of Costs Orders Abroad, Conditional Fee Agreements, Access to Justice Under ECHR Article 6
Civil Procedure Defamation Security for Costs Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Enforcement of Costs Orders Abroad Conditional Fee Agreements Access to Justice Under ECHR Article 6

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

Parties

Al-Koronky & Anor

Claimants/appellants

Time-Life Entertainment Group Limited & Anor

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) on Interlocutory Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in ordering security for costs against claimants resident abroad
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether enforcement of a costs order in Sudan is impractical

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge was entitled to order security for costs because the claimants had not provided a full and candid account of their means, enforcement of a costs order in Sudan was shown on the evidence to be impractical, and the amount ordered was within the judge's discretion. The fresh evidence sought to be admitted could and should have been produced at first instance and was not admitted except for a limited admission against interest. There was no error of law or principle in the judge's approach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Security for costs in the sum of £375,000 to be provided by the claimants down to completion of disclosure.
  • Action stayed until security is provided, with liberty to apply.