Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc [2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm) (17 May 2004)

Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc [2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm) (17 May 2004)

Security for costs is ordered where the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction and there is a realistic risk of extra burden in enforcing a costs order abroad, but not on the basis of inability to pay unless proven. The quantum must be proportionate to the additional burden of enforcement, not the full costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Texuna International Ltd; Defendant: Cairn Energy Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Judgments, Discretionary Powers, Discrimination in Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Jurisdiction Enforcement of Judgments Discretionary Powers Discrimination in Access to Justice

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Texuna International Ltd

Claimant

Cairn Energy Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction for the purposes of CPR 25.13(2)(a)
  2. 2 Whether there is reason to believe the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so under CPR 25.13(2)(c)
  3. 3 How the court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs in light of Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait and related authorities

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered where the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction and there is a realistic risk of extra burden in enforcing a costs order abroad, but not on the basis of inability to pay unless proven. The quantum must be proportionate to the additional burden of enforcement, not the full costs of the action, in line with Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for the defendant's costs in the amount of £100,000.