Te Hsing Maritime SA v CertAsig SA & Anor

Te Hsing Maritime SA v CertAsig SA & Anor

The evidence did not establish that enforcement of an English costs judgment in Taiwan would involve significant additional obstacles or burdens compared to a Brussels or Lugano state, and any additional costs or delays were unquantified or minimal. The Second Claimant has substantial assets, and the Defendants have potential security via general average liability. It is not just to order security for costs.

Parties
Claimants: Te Hsing Maritime S. A. and another; Defendants: CertAsig S. A. and another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Marine Insurance, Constructive Total Loss, General Average
Commercial Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Marine Insurance Constructive Total Loss General Average

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Te Hsing Maritime S. A. and another

Claimants

CertAsig S. A. and another

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against claimants resident in Taiwan
  2. 2 Whether English costs judgment is enforceable in Taiwan
  3. 3 Whether additional obstacles or burdens exist in enforcing judgment in Taiwan compared to Brussels or Lugano state

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that enforcement of an English costs judgment in Taiwan would involve significant additional obstacles or burdens compared to a Brussels or Lugano state, and any additional costs or delays were unquantified or minimal. The Second Claimant has substantial assets, and the Defendants have potential security via general average liability. It is not just to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs is dismissed
  • It is recorded that any costs order made in the Defendant's favour will be against both Claimants jointly and severally