Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds that there is an important question of practice regarding the nature and factual basis of the CPR Part 3.1(3) jurisdiction and the quantum of the order, but refused on all other grounds including the refusal to admit further evidence as to means.

Parties: Appellant: Bryan Huscroft; Respondent: P & O Ferries Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 June 2010
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome: Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Case Management, Appeals, CPR Part 3.1(3)

Civil Procedure Security for Costs Case Management Appeals CPR Part 3.1(3)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Bryan Huscroft

Appellant

P & O Ferries Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether Judge Babbington lawfully exercised jurisdiction under CPR Part 3.1(3) to order payment into court as security for costs
2 Whether there was a factual basis for the exercise of such jurisdiction
3 Whether the quantum of £5,000 was a wrongful exercise of the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted in part, refused in part

Orders

Permission to appeal granted on the grounds relating to the factual basis for and quantum of the order under CPR Part 3.1(3)
Permission to appeal refused on all other grounds including the refusal to admit further evidence as to means