Maroil Trading Inc & Anor v Cally Shipholdings Inc & Ors

Maroil Trading Inc & Anor v Cally Shipholdings Inc & Ors

The court ordered 65% security for costs in respect of the Part 7 proceedings, finding this reflects a reasonable estimate of what would be awarded on detailed assessment, erring slightly in favour of the recipient. The court declined to order the claimants to provide security for the costs of the Part 20 (third party) proceedings, holding that it was not likely the claimants would be liable for such costs given the nature of the claims and the likelihood of costs following the outcome of the fraud allegations. For the third parties' costs, the court awarded 60% security, taking into account the contractual indemnity and the high but not wholly recoverable costs claimed.

Parties
Claimant: Maroil Trading Inc; Claimant: Sea Pioneer Shipping Corporation; Defendant: Cally Shipholdings Inc; Defendant: Vital Shipping Corporation; Defendant: Dainford Navigation Inc; Defendant: Tamara Shipholdings S.A.; Defendant: Tuscany Maritime S.A.; Defendant: Novoship (UK) Limited; Third Party: Burford Capital (UK) Limited; Third Party: Daniel James Hall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court (qbd) Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Security for Costs
Outcome
Partly allowed and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Assessment, Third Party Proceedings, Indemnity Costs, Fraud Allegations
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Costs Assessment Third Party Proceedings Indemnity Costs Fraud Allegations

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maroil Trading Inc

Claimant

Sea Pioneer Shipping Corporation

Claimant

Cally Shipholdings Inc

Defendant

Vital Shipping Corporation

Defendant

Dainford Navigation Inc

Defendant

Tamara Shipholdings S.A.

Defendant

Tuscany Maritime S.A.

Defendant

Novoship (UK) Limited

Defendant

Burford Capital (UK) Limited

Third Party

Daniel James Hall

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court (qbd) Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What percentage of security for costs should be ordered in respect of the Part 7 proceedings?
  2. 2 Should the claimants provide security for the costs of the Part 20 (third party) proceedings?
  3. 3 What amount of security should the defendants provide to the third parties for costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered 65% security for costs in respect of the Part 7 proceedings, finding this reflects a reasonable estimate of what would be awarded on detailed assessment, erring slightly in favour of the recipient. The court declined to order the claimants to provide security for the costs of the Part 20 (third party) proceedings, holding that it was not likely the claimants would be liable for such costs given the nature of the claims and the likelihood of costs following the outcome of the fraud allegations. For the third parties' costs, the court awarded 60% security, taking into account the contractual indemnity and the high but not wholly recoverable costs claimed.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for costs in respect of the Part 7 proceedings at 65% of the claimed amount.
  • No order for claimants to provide security for costs of the Part 20 (third party) proceedings.