Chilab v King's College London & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 1178 (15 August 2012)

Chilab v King's College London & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 1178 (15 August 2012)

There was no evidence of any agreement or expectation that the claimant's wife would receive a share of any recovery; her contributions were motivated by natural love and affection, not for financial gain. Therefore, the statutory precondition for a security for costs order against a third party was not met, and the application must be refused.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1178
Parties
Appellant: Chilab; First Respondent: King's College London; Second Respondent: Amira Sewan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Third Party Funding, Appeals, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Education Law Security for Costs Third Party Funding Appeals 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chilab

Appellant

King's College London

First Respondent

Amira Sewan

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to order security for costs against a third party under CPR 25.14 on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the statutory precondition for such an order is satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of any agreement or expectation that the claimant's wife would receive a share of any recovery; her contributions were motivated by natural love and affection, not for financial gain. Therefore, the statutory precondition for a security for costs order against a third party was not met, and the application must be refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for security for costs against the claimant's wife refused