Newman (t/a "Newman Associates) v Wenden Properties Ltd & Anor

Newman (t/a "Newman Associates) v Wenden Properties Ltd & Anor

Security for costs is ordered against the Defendant on its counterclaim because the counterclaim is a separate claim with independent vitality, the Defendant company would be unable to pay costs if unsuccessful, and there is no credible evidence that ordering security would stifle a genuine claim or that the Defendant's financial position is due to the Claimant's fault.

Parties
Claimant: William Newman (Trading as Newman Associates); Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Wenden Properties Limited; Part 20 Defendant: S. Newman Consultants (Trading as Newman Consultants)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Professional Services Liability, Counterclaims, Company Law
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Security for Costs Professional Services Liability Counterclaims Company Law

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Newman (Trading as Newman Associates)

Claimant

Wenden Properties Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

S. Newman Consultants (Trading as Newman Consultants)

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the Defendant on its counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim is bona fide and has reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would stifle a genuine claim

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered against the Defendant on its counterclaim because the counterclaim is a separate claim with independent vitality, the Defendant company would be unable to pay costs if unsuccessful, and there is no credible evidence that ordering security would stifle a genuine claim or that the Defendant's financial position is due to the Claimant's fault.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Defendant to provide security for costs in the sum of £45,000 up to the exchange of witness statements
  • Precise form of security to be agreed between parties or determined by the court if not agreed