Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1483 (21 December 2010)

Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1483 (21 December 2010)

The District Judge erred in making a free-standing order for security for costs under CPR 3.1(3) not attached to specific relief and without sufficient justification based on the claimant's conduct; the power under CPR 3.1(3) is not a general power to order security for costs and must be exercised to control future conduct, not to penalise past behaviour.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 1483
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Bryan Huscroft; Defendant/respondent: P & O Ferries Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Sheffield County Court, Order of District Judge Babbington, Appeal From His Honour Judge Bullimore
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Case Management Powers, Conditional Orders, Impecuniosity, Proportionality in Litigation
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Case Management Powers Conditional Orders Impecuniosity Proportionality in Litigation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan Huscroft

Claimant/appellant

P & O Ferries Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Sheffield County Court, Order of District Judge Babbington, Appeal From His Honour Judge Bullimore

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under CPR 3.1(3) to order payment into court as security for costs as a condition of case management directions
  2. 2 Whether the criticisms of the claimant's conduct justified the imposition of such a condition
  3. 3 Whether the amount ordered (£5,000) was appropriate given the evidence of means

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge erred in making a free-standing order for security for costs under CPR 3.1(3) not attached to specific relief and without sufficient justification based on the claimant's conduct; the power under CPR 3.1(3) is not a general power to order security for costs and must be exercised to control future conduct, not to penalise past behaviour.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for payment of £5,000 into court as security for costs set aside