Newman (t/a "Newman Associates) v Wenden Properties Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 336 (TCC) (16 February 2007)

Newman (t/a "Newman Associates) v Wenden Properties Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 336 (TCC) (16 February 2007)

The Defendant's counterclaim is a separate claim with independent vitality, not merely a defence; the Defendant has not demonstrated that ordering security would stifle a genuine claim as alternative sources of funding are available; the Defendant's financial position is not attributable to the Claimant; therefore, it is appropriate to order security for costs in the sum of £45,000 up to the exchange of witness statements.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 336 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: William Newman (Trading as "Newman Associates"); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Wenden Properties Limited; Part 20 Defendant: S. Newman Consultants (A Firm) (Trading as "Newman Consultants")
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Professional Negligence, Counterclaim, Company Law, Costs
Civil Procedure Construction Law Security for Costs Professional Negligence Counterclaim Company Law Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Newman (Trading as "Newman Associates")

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Wenden Properties Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

S. Newman Consultants (A Firm) (Trading as "Newman Consultants")

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant on its counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim is a separate claim or merely a defence
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would stifle a genuine claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's counterclaim is a separate claim with independent vitality, not merely a defence; the Defendant has not demonstrated that ordering security would stifle a genuine claim as alternative sources of funding are available; the Defendant's financial position is not attributable to the Claimant; therefore, it is appropriate to order security for costs in the sum of £45,000 up to the exchange of witness statements.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

  • Defendant/Part 20 Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £45,000 up to the exchange of witness statements.
  • Precise form of security to be agreed between the parties or determined by the court if not agreed.