Hirbodan Management Company & Anor v Cummins Power Generation Ltd [2021] EWHC 3315 (Comm) (24 March 2021)

Hirbodan Management Company & Anor v Cummins Power Generation Ltd [2021] EWHC 3315 (Comm) (24 March 2021)

Security for costs is ordered because the Claimants are resident outside the jurisdiction, there is a real risk of total non-enforcement of a costs order in both Iran and Dubai, and the Claimants have failed to engage or provide evidence to the contrary. The application is properly brought, there is no evidence of stifling, and the amount of security is set by reference to the approved prospective costs, subject to deduction for costs already incurred. Orders for retrospective and alternative service are also appropriate due to the Claimants' failure to provide an address for service.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3315 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Hirbodan Management Company; Claimant: HICO FZE; Defendant: Cummins Power Generation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Enforcement of Foreign Judgment and Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; orders for retrospective and alternative service granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction, Service of Documents, Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Service of Documents Costs

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

Parties

Hirbodan Management Company

Claimant

HICO FZE

Claimant

Cummins Power Generation Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Enforcement of Foreign Judgment and Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is entitled to security for costs under CPR 25.12 and 25.13
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of non-enforcement of a costs order in Iran and Dubai
  3. 3 Whether it is just to order security for costs in all the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered because the Claimants are resident outside the jurisdiction, there is a real risk of total non-enforcement of a costs order in both Iran and Dubai, and the Claimants have failed to engage or provide evidence to the contrary. The application is properly brought, there is no evidence of stifling, and the amount of security is set by reference to the approved prospective costs, subject to deduction for costs already incurred. Orders for retrospective and alternative service are also appropriate due to the Claimants' failure to provide an address for service.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; orders for retrospective and alternative service granted.

Orders

  • Security for costs in the sum of £762,100 to be provided in tranches as per the approved costs budget, subject to deduction for costs already incurred.
  • Security to be provided by payment into court or in a form acceptable to the Defendant and the court.