Beriwala v Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Ltd & Anor

Beriwala v Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Ltd & Anor

The Defendants failed to establish that the Claimant took steps to put assets out of reach or that the omission of her apartment number on the claim form caused prejudice. There was no evidence of undisclosed assets or asset dissipation. The application was late without good reason, and the counterclaim mirrored the claim, making security inappropriate. Even if threshold conditions were met, discretion would not favour an order for security for costs.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Neha Beriwala; First Defendant: Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Limited; Second Defendant: Mr Joga Khangure
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Defendants' application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discretion in Procedural Applications, Counterclaims, Delay in Applications, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Discretion in Procedural Applications Counterclaims Delay in Applications 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Neha Beriwala

Claimant

Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Limited

First Defendant

Mr Joga Khangure

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the threshold conditions for security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(e) and (g) are met
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs in the circumstances of this case

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to establish that the Claimant took steps to put assets out of reach or that the omission of her apartment number on the claim form caused prejudice. There was no evidence of undisclosed assets or asset dissipation. The application was late without good reason, and the counterclaim mirrored the claim, making security inappropriate. Even if threshold conditions were met, discretion would not favour an order for security for costs.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' application for security for costs is dismissed
  • Parties to agree a form of order; if not, a consequentials hearing will be listed