Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc

Texuna International Ltd v Cairn Energy Plc

The claimant is resident in Hong Kong and thus out of the jurisdiction, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(a). The defendant failed to prove the claimant will be unable to pay costs under CPR 25.13(2)(c). Discretion to order security for costs is justified by the extra burden and risk of enforcement in Hong Kong, but the quantum must be limited to reflect only the additional burden and risk, not the full costs of the action. Security is ordered in the sum of £100,000, reflecting the estimated extra costs and risk of enforcement abroad.

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 / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Judgments, Discretionary Remedies
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Jurisdiction Enforcement of Judgments Discretionary Remedies

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Texuna International Ltd

Claimant

Cairn Energy Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction for 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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is resident in Hong Kong and thus out of the jurisdiction, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(a). The defendant failed to prove the claimant will be unable to pay costs under CPR 25.13(2)(c). Discretion to order security for costs is justified by the extra burden and risk of enforcement in Hong Kong, but the quantum must be limited to reflect only the additional burden and risk, not the full costs of the action. Security is ordered in the sum of £100,000, reflecting the estimated extra costs and risk of enforcement abroad.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

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