Premier Motorauctions Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP & Anor [2016] EWHC 2610 (Ch) (24 October 2016)

Premier Motorauctions Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP & Anor [2016] EWHC 2610 (Ch) (24 October 2016)

The existence of ATE insurance policies arranged by independent liquidators, with no specific evidence of material non-disclosure or real risk of avoidance, and with reputable or established insurers, means there is no reason to believe the claimants will be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so. The jurisdictional threshold for ordering security for costs under CPR 25.13 is not met.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2610 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Premier Motorauctions Limited (in liquidation); Claimant: Premier Motorauctions Leeds Limited (in liquidation); First Defendant: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; Second Defendant: Lloyds Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Application for Security for Costs After Close of Pleadings, First Case Management Conference
Outcome
Defendants' applications for security for costs refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, After the Event (ate) Insurance, Jurisdictional Threshold Under CPR 25.13, Insolvent Claimants, Credit Worthiness of Insurers
Civil Procedure Insolvency Insurance Law Security for Costs After the Event (ate) Insurance Jurisdictional Threshold Under CPR 25.13 Insolvent Claimants Credit Worthiness of Insurers

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

Parties

Premier Motorauctions Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

Premier Motorauctions Leeds Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

First Defendant

Lloyds Bank PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Application for Security for Costs After Close of Pleadings, First Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existence of ATE insurance policies displaces the jurisdictional threshold for ordering security for costs under CPR 25.13 where claimants are insolvent companies
  2. 2 Whether the ATE policies in question provide sufficient security for the defendants' costs
  3. 3 Whether the credit-worthiness of non-UK insurers (Elite and Acasta) affects the adequacy of security

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of ATE insurance policies arranged by independent liquidators, with no specific evidence of material non-disclosure or real risk of avoidance, and with reputable or established insurers, means there is no reason to believe the claimants will be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so. The jurisdictional threshold for ordering security for costs under CPR 25.13 is not met.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for security for costs refused.

Orders

  • Defendants' applications for security for costs are dismissed.
  • Defendants have liberty to apply as the case progresses, particularly if costs threaten the Acasta insurance layer.