Topworkmen.Com Ltd. v Billscutter Ltd. [2011] EWHC B20 (QB) (12 July 2011)

Topworkmen.Com Ltd. v Billscutter Ltd. [2011] EWHC B20 (QB) (12 July 2011)

The court found that ordering security for costs in excess of £1,000 would stifle the Claimant's claim, that the Claimant's impecuniosity was caused by the Defendant's breach of contract, that the claim had good prospects of success, and that ATE insurance provided sufficient protection for the Defendant. Therefore, it was not just to order security for costs.

Citation
[2011] EWHC B20
Parties
Claimant: [Claimant company name not specified]; Defendant: Billscutter Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Before Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, After the Event (ate) Insurance, Breach of Contract, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Contract Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity After the Event (ate) Insurance Breach of Contract Access to Justice

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[Claimant company name not specified]

Claimant

Billscutter Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Before Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs should be made against the Claimant under CPR 25.13
  2. 2 Whether such an order would stifle the Claimant's claim
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's impecuniosity was caused by the Defendant's alleged breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that ordering security for costs in excess of £1,000 would stifle the Claimant's claim, that the Claimant's impecuniosity was caused by the Defendant's breach of contract, that the claim had good prospects of success, and that ATE insurance provided sufficient protection for the Defendant. Therefore, it was not just to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs is made.