Longstaff International Ltd v Baker McKenzie

Longstaff, though possessing valuable assets, is substantially illiquid and unable to pay costs promptly if ordered; Redwell’s unsecured undertaking does not suffice as security. Therefore, Longstaff must provide security for costs in a form acceptable to the court.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Longstaff International Limited; Defendant/applicant: Baker McKenzie
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 June 2004
Procedural Posture: Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Opposed Application
Outcome: Application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Corporate Liquidity, Enforcement of Costs Orders

Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Corporate Liquidity Enforcement of Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12

Parties

Longstaff International Limited

Claimant/respondent

Baker McKenzie

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Opposed Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether Longstaff should be ordered to provide security for costs under CPR 25.12 and 25.13
2 Whether Redwell's undertaking suffices as security
3 Whether Longstaff's asset strength and liquidity affect the need for security

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted.

Orders

Longstaff to provide security for Baker & McKenzie’s costs in the amount requested, either by payment into court, bank guarantee reasonably acceptable to Baker & McKenzie, or other form as Baker & McKenzie may accept.
Liberty to apply as to reasonable acceptability of any bank guarantee or other form of security.