Dimension Data Advanced Infrastructure Ltd v Berkeley Homes Plc & Ors

Dimension Data Advanced Infrastructure Ltd v Berkeley Homes Plc & Ors

Security for costs is appropriate where the claimant is in administration and unable to pay costs, and the existence of a bond or guarantee does not alter this position. The prejudice to the claimant is minimal, as it would be in the same position had the defendants proceeded directly against the bondsman or guarantor. The proceedings should be struck out, not stayed, if security is not provided.

Parties
Claimant: Dimension Data Advanced Infrastructure Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Berkeley Homes PLC; Defendant/applicant: St Edward Homes Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Berkeley Homes (Urban Renaissance) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/construction / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Insolvency, Contractual Bonds and Guarantees
Civil Procedure Construction Law Security for Costs Insolvency Contractual Bonds and Guarantees

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dimension Data Advanced Infrastructure Ltd

Claimant

Berkeley Homes PLC

Defendant/applicant

St Edward Homes Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Berkeley Homes (Urban Renaissance) Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/construction / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an insolvent claimant company
  2. 2 Whether the existence of a bond and parent company guarantee affects the appropriateness of a security for costs order
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should be stayed or struck out if security is not provided

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is appropriate where the claimant is in administration and unable to pay costs, and the existence of a bond or guarantee does not alter this position. The prejudice to the claimant is minimal, as it would be in the same position had the defendants proceeded directly against the bondsman or guarantor. The proceedings should be struck out, not stayed, if security is not provided.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in agreed tranches; if not provided, claim to be struck out
  • Sums for security may be revisited at the case and costs management conference