Accident Exchange Ltd & Anor v McLean & Ors [2018] EWHC 1533 (Comm) (12 June 2018)

Accident Exchange Ltd & Anor v McLean & Ors [2018] EWHC 1533 (Comm) (12 June 2018)

The claimants failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that an order for security would stifle the claim, as they did not provide sufficient evidence that associated entities or backers would not provide funding. Although the application was made late, this did not justify refusing security but warranted a reduction in the amount ordered. Security for costs was therefore appropriate, with the quantum set at 60% of the defendants' estimated costs, and a further reduction for incurred costs to reflect delay.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1533 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Accident Exchange Limited; Claimant/respondent: Automotive and Insurance Solutions Group PLC; Defendant/applicant: Colin McLean; Defendant/applicant: Suzanna Forrest; Defendant/applicant: Morgan Cole (A Firm); Defendant/applicant: Morgan Cole LLP; Defendant/applicant: Neil Forsyth; Defendant/applicant: Keoghs (A Firm); Defendant/applicant: Keoghs LLP; Defendant/applicant: Melanie Mooney; Defendant/applicant: Lyons Davidson (A Firm); Defendant/applicant: Nigel Partridge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Litigation / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted, with quantum reduced to reflect delay.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Delay in Application, Stifling of Claim, Corporate Structure and Funding, Discretionary Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Delay in Application Stifling of Claim Corporate Structure and Funding Discretionary Orders

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

Parties

Accident Exchange Limited

Claimant/respondent

Automotive and Insurance Solutions Group PLC

Claimant/respondent

Colin McLean

Defendant/applicant

Suzanna Forrest

Defendant/applicant

Morgan Cole (A Firm)

Defendant/applicant

Morgan Cole LLP

Defendant/applicant

Neil Forsyth

Defendant/applicant

Keoghs (A Firm)

Defendant/applicant

Keoghs LLP

Defendant/applicant

Melanie Mooney

Defendant/applicant

Lyons Davidson (A Firm)

Defendant/applicant

Nigel Partridge

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Litigation / Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimants
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle the claim
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the application should affect the order

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that an order for security would stifle the claim, as they did not provide sufficient evidence that associated entities or backers would not provide funding. Although the application was made late, this did not justify refusing security but warranted a reduction in the amount ordered. Security for costs was therefore appropriate, with the quantum set at 60% of the defendants' estimated costs, and a further reduction for incurred costs to reflect delay.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted, with quantum reduced to reflect delay.

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for costs to the defendants in three tranches, calculated at 60% of estimated costs, with incurred costs further reduced to 60% of 60%.
  • Parties to agree the precise figures for security.