The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling & Anor [2013] EWHC 1720 (QB) (19 June 2013)

The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling & Anor [2013] EWHC 1720 (QB) (19 June 2013)

The Deputy Master was not plainly wrong in his assessment that the Claimant's case was only more likely than not to succeed, not highly likely; the Claimant failed to show that it could not raise security from shareholders or directors; the form of security offered was not proven to be adequate; and the order for security for costs was a proper exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1720 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd; 1st Defendant: Mr Cowling; 2nd Defendant: Mr Lawrence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Fiduciary Duties, Breach of Duty, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Fiduciary Duties Breach of Duty Appeal Procedure

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd

Claimant

Mr Cowling

1st Defendant

Mr Lawrence

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in ordering security for costs against the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the merits of the Claimant's case were such as to preclude an order for security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's impecuniosity was caused by the Defendants' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master was not plainly wrong in his assessment that the Claimant's case was only more likely than not to succeed, not highly likely; the Claimant failed to show that it could not raise security from shareholders or directors; the form of security offered was not proven to be adequate; and the order for security for costs was a proper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for security for costs in the sum of £240,000 stands
  • Action stayed until security is given as directed