Primafacio Ltd v Tres Canopia Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 430 (Comm) (02 March 2023)

Primafacio Ltd v Tres Canopia Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 430 (Comm) (02 March 2023)

The similar fact evidence is legally admissible and its probative value is not clearly outweighed by the additional time and cost at this stage; therefore, it should not be struck out. There is reason to believe the First Defendant will be unable to pay costs if ordered, and the Second Defendant has not provided sufficiently reliable evidence to be considered a good mark for costs; therefore, security for costs is appropriate.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 430 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Primafacio Limited; First Defendant: Tres Canopia Limited; Second Defendant: Euroenergy Investments Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / First Case Management Conference (cmc) With Applications for Strike Out and Security for Costs
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed; application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Strike Out Applications, Similar Fact Evidence, Share Purchase Agreement, Corporate Guarantee, Set Off, Fraud Allegations
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Strike Out Applications Similar Fact Evidence Share Purchase Agreement Corporate Guarantee Set Off +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Primafacio Limited

Claimant

Tres Canopia Limited

First Defendant

Euroenergy Investments Corporation

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / First Case Management Conference (cmc) With Applications for Strike Out and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether similar fact evidence should be admitted in support of the Counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant should provide security for costs of the Counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The similar fact evidence is legally admissible and its probative value is not clearly outweighed by the additional time and cost at this stage; therefore, it should not be struck out. There is reason to believe the First Defendant will be unable to pay costs if ordered, and the Second Defendant has not provided sufficiently reliable evidence to be considered a good mark for costs; therefore, security for costs is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed; application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Similar fact evidence not struck out and may be admitted at trial judge's discretion.
  • First Defendant to provide security for costs in stages, with details to be agreed by parties.