Ahmed v Blackburn & Co & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 141 (31 January 2001)

Ahmed v Blackburn & Co & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 141 (31 January 2001)

Security for costs is appropriate where the appellant is resident outside the jurisdiction and enforcement is not available under the Brussels or Lugano Conventions. The security should be limited to the costs of the appeal, not prior costs or counterclaim judgment. New evidence does not preclude security for costs, and hardship or litigation history does not outweigh the justice of ordering security in these circumstances.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 141
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mushtaq Ahmed; Defendant: Blackburn & Co; Defendant/applicant: Adam F Greenhalgh & Co; Defendant: Marsden Building Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure, Jurisdiction, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appeal Procedure Jurisdiction Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mushtaq Ahmed

Claimant/respondent

Blackburn & Co

Defendant

Adam F Greenhalgh & Co

Defendant/applicant

Marsden Building Society

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an appellant resident outside the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether new evidence justifies refusal of security for costs
  3. 3 Whether security should cover only appeal costs or also prior costs and counterclaim judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is appropriate where the appellant is resident outside the jurisdiction and enforcement is not available under the Brussels or Lugano Conventions. The security should be limited to the costs of the appeal, not prior costs or counterclaim judgment. New evidence does not preclude security for costs, and hardship or litigation history does not outweigh the justice of ordering security in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for second defendant's costs of the appeal in the sum of £6,000 within 42 days by paying into court
  • If security is not provided, the appeal shall be struck out without further order