Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1432 (Ch) (24 May 2018)

Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1432 (Ch) (24 May 2018)

An order for security for costs should not be made where it would stifle a bona fide and genuine claim by an insolvent company in liquidation, particularly where the company has no means to provide security and the claim is being pursued for the benefit of creditors. The balance of justice favours allowing the claim to proceed without security in these circumstances.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1432 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Absolute Living Developments Limited (in liquidation) (acting by its Liquidator, Louise Mary Brittain); Defendants: DS7 Limited and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Liquidation, Stifling of Claims, Discretionary Orders, Funding of Litigation
Civil Procedure Insolvency Security for Costs Liquidation Stifling of Claims Discretionary Orders Funding of 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absolute Living Developments Limited (in liquidation) (acting by its Liquidator, Louise Mary Brittain)

Claimant

DS7 Limited and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an insolvent claimant company in liquidation
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle a genuine claim

Ratio Decidendi

An order for security for costs should not be made where it would stifle a bona fide and genuine claim by an insolvent company in liquidation, particularly where the company has no means to provide security and the claim is being pursued for the benefit of creditors. The balance of justice favours allowing the claim to proceed without security in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs
  • Claimant permitted to proceed with the claim without providing security