Michael Phillips Architects Ltd v Riklin & Anor [2010] EWHC 834 (TCC) (23 April 2010)

Michael Phillips Architects Ltd v Riklin & Anor [2010] EWHC 834 (TCC) (23 April 2010)

The ATE insurance policy obtained by the claimant did not provide real security for the defendants' costs due to extensive cancellation and avoidance provisions, and the claimant's financial position met the threshold for ordering security for costs. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the sum of £30,000.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 834 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Phillips Architects Limited; Defendant: Cornel Clark Riklin; Defendant: Susan Oglesby Riklin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against claimant
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, After the Event Insurance, Conditional Fee Agreements, Professional Fees, Set Off, Counterclaim
Civil Procedure Construction Law Security for Costs After the Event Insurance Conditional Fee Agreements Professional Fees Set Off Counterclaim

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Phillips Architects Limited

Claimant

Cornel Clark Riklin

Defendant

Susan Oglesby Riklin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ATE insurance provides adequate security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion to order security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's financial position meets the threshold for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The ATE insurance policy obtained by the claimant did not provide real security for the defendants' costs due to extensive cancellation and avoidance provisions, and the claimant's financial position met the threshold for ordering security for costs. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs in the sum of £30,000.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against claimant

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £30,000