Stunt v Associated Newspapers Limited

Stunt v Associated Newspapers Limited

The claimant failed to provide his residential or business address in the claim form, breaching CPR 16 and Practice Direction 16, and took steps in relation to his assets (including asset realisations, encumbrances, and non-payment of debts) that would make enforcement of a costs order more difficult. These threshold conditions being met, and in the absence of satisfactory evidence from the claimant as to his asset position, it is just to order security for costs, notwithstanding the existence of a restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: James Stunt; Defendant/applicant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection Act 1998, Harassment, Practice Direction 16, CPR 25.12 and 25.13
Civil Procedure Media Law Data Protection Security for Costs Misuse of Private Information Data Protection Act 1998 Harassment Practice Direction 16 +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Stunt

Claimant/respondent

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant failed to provide a proper address in the claim form as required by CPR 16 and Practice Direction 16
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce a costs order (CPR 25.13(2)(g))
  3. 3 Whether it is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to provide his residential or business address in the claim form, breaching CPR 16 and Practice Direction 16, and took steps in relation to his assets (including asset realisations, encumbrances, and non-payment of debts) that would make enforcement of a costs order more difficult. These threshold conditions being met, and in the absence of satisfactory evidence from the claimant as to his asset position, it is just to order security for costs, notwithstanding the existence of a restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for the defendant’s costs by paying £460,000 into court within a specified period, without prejudice to the restraint order and not authorising any variation of that order.
  • Further proceedings stayed until security is provided.