Accident Exchange Ltd & Anor v McLean & Ors

Accident Exchange Ltd & Anor v McLean & Ors

The claimants failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that an order for security for costs would stifle the claim, as there was insufficient evidence that associated funders or interested parties would not provide the necessary funds. Although there was delay in making the application, it did not justify refusing security altogether but warranted a reduction in the quantum ordered. Security for costs was therefore appropriate, with the amount to be calculated as 60% of the claimed costs, and a further reduction for incurred costs to reflect delay.

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
Civil (commercial) / Application for Security for Costs Before Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted, with reduction for delay
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Delay in Application, Stifling of Claim, Corporate Structure and Funding
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Delay in Application Stifling of Claim Corporate Structure and Funding

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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

Civil (commercial) / Application for Security for Costs Before Trial

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that an order for security for costs would stifle the claim, as there was insufficient evidence that associated funders or interested parties would not provide the necessary funds. Although there was delay in making the application, it did not justify refusing security altogether but warranted a reduction in the quantum ordered. Security for costs was therefore appropriate, with the amount to be calculated as 60% of the claimed costs, and a further reduction for incurred costs to reflect delay.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted, with reduction for delay

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for costs to the defendants in the amount of 60% of the claimed costs for future costs, and 60% of 60% for incurred costs, with the precise figures to be agreed by the parties.