Cody v Murray & Ors [2013] EWHC 3448 (Ch) (19 November 2013)

Cody v Murray & Ors [2013] EWHC 3448 (Ch) (19 November 2013)

The court held that, applying Nasser, the existence of a $30,000 exemption under Texas law could justify an order for security for costs in that amount, but no more, as there was no evidence of greater obstacles or costs compared to Europe. The Claimant's evidence did not establish that an order for $30,000 would stifle the claim, nor did the ATE insurance policy provide sufficient cover or certainty to displace the need for security.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3448 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: David Cody; First Defendant: Andrew Murray; Second Defendant: Judy Murray; Third Defendant: William Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Contractual Disputes, ATE Insurance, Exempt Property Under Texas Law
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Contractual Disputes ATE Insurance Exempt Property Under Texas Law

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

Parties

David Cody

Claimant

Andrew Murray

First Defendant

Judy Murray

Second Defendant

William Murray

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against a claimant resident in Texas
  2. 2 Whether the exemptions under Texas law create a substantial obstacle or extra burden to enforcement justifying security for costs
  3. 3 Whether an ATE insurance policy or impecuniosity should affect the order for security

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, applying Nasser, the existence of a $30,000 exemption under Texas law could justify an order for security for costs in that amount, but no more, as there was no evidence of greater obstacles or costs compared to Europe. The Claimant's evidence did not establish that an order for $30,000 would stifle the claim, nor did the ATE insurance policy provide sufficient cover or certainty to displace the need for security.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of $30,000, to be paid into court within 28 days.
  • Proceedings stayed until payment is made.