Seakom Ltd & Anor v Knowledgepool Group Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1164 (08 August 2014)

Seakom Ltd & Anor v Knowledgepool Group Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1164 (08 August 2014)

The appellants' financial position is weak, there is reason to believe they would be unable to pay the respondent's costs if ordered, and they have taken steps in relation to their assets making enforcement difficult. The appellants did not provide sufficient evidence that an order for security would stifle the appeal. It is just and proportionate to order security for costs in the sum of £50,000.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1164
Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Seakom Limited; Claimant / Appellant: Seakom International Limited; Defendant / Respondent: Knowledgepool Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interpretation of Contracts, Estoppel by Convention, Jurisdictional Issues, Corporate Insolvency
Civil Procedure Contract Law Security for Costs Interpretation of Contracts Estoppel by Convention Jurisdictional Issues Corporate Insolvency

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 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seakom Limited

Claimant / Appellant

Seakom International Limited

Claimant / Appellant

Knowledgepool Group Limited

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should provide security for the respondent's costs of the appeal under CPR 25.13
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are unable to pay the respondent's costs if ordered to do so
  3. 3 Whether steps taken by the appellants in relation to their assets justify an order for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' financial position is weak, there is reason to believe they would be unable to pay the respondent's costs if ordered, and they have taken steps in relation to their assets making enforcement difficult. The appellants did not provide sufficient evidence that an order for security would stifle the appeal. It is just and proportionate to order security for costs in the sum of £50,000.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Appellants to provide security for costs in the sum of £50,000 under CPR 25.15
  • Appellants to pay respondent's costs of the application, summarily assessed at £16,000