Gemyat Gemi Insa VE & Anor v Oakley & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1435 (17 October 2006)

Gemyat Gemi Insa VE & Anor v Oakley & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1435 (17 October 2006)

There was no evidence that the order for security for costs would stifle a genuine claim, and the judge was correct to conclude that the general power under CPR 25.12 permitted such an order even in section 24 applications. The application for permission to appeal had no realistic prospect of success.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1435
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Gemyat Gemi Insa Ve & Anr; Defendant/respondent: Oakley & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Removal of Arbitrators, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996, Extension of Time for Appeal
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Removal of Arbitrators Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act 1996 Extension of Time for Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gemyat Gemi Insa Ve & Anr

Claimant/appellant

Oakley & Ors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for security for costs was oppressive and stifled a genuine claim
  2. 2 Whether security for costs can be ordered in applications under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to order security for costs given a reciprocal treaty between Turkey and the UK

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the order for security for costs would stifle a genuine claim, and the judge was correct to conclude that the general power under CPR 25.12 permitted such an order even in section 24 applications. The application for permission to appeal had no realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is refused.