Abbotswood Shipping Corporation v Air Pacific Ltd (Rev 1)
The application for security for costs was dismissed because the claim and counterclaim substantially overlap, making it unjust to order security for costs against the claimant. The Crabtree principle applies, and no countervailing factors justify departure from it.
- Parties
- Claimant: Abbotswood Shipping Corporation; Defendant: Air Pacific Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Application for security for costs dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Overlap of Claim and Counterclaim, Contracts (rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, Aircraft Lease Agreements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abbotswood Shipping Corporation
Claimant
Air Pacific Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claimant should provide security for the defendant’s costs under CPR 25.12 and CPR 25.13(2)(a) and/or (c)
- 2 Whether the claim and counterclaim substantially overlap such that security for costs is unjust
Ratio Decidendi
The application for security for costs was dismissed because the claim and counterclaim substantially overlap, making it unjust to order security for costs against the claimant. The Crabtree principle applies, and no countervailing factors justify departure from it.
Court Disposition
Application for security for costs dismissed
Orders
- Application for security for costs is dismissed
- Costs to be dealt with by paper application unless agreed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment