Dr Sven-Holger Undritz & Ors v D’Amico Tankers DAC

Dr Sven-Holger Undritz & Ors v D’Amico Tankers DAC

The claimants, being insolvent companies, fall within CPR 25.7(b)(ii) and security for costs is just and appropriate. The evidence does not show that the companies would be unable to pay the ordered security or that the claim would be stifled. A deduction is made for certain costs, and a 40% discount is applied to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Sven-Holger Undritz, Insolvency Administrator regarding the assets of Novellas “St. Georg” GmbH & Co. KG, Novellas “St. Clemens” GmbH & Co. KG, Novellas “St. Lukas” GmbH & Co. KG, Novellas “St. Michaelis” GmbH & Co. KG; Defendant: D’Amico Tankers DAC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (debt Recovery Under Charterparties) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Company Insolvency, Charterparty Disputes, Limitation Defence, Set Off, Summary Judgment
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Company Insolvency Charterparty Disputes Limitation Defence Set Off +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Sven-Holger Undritz, Insolvency Administrator regarding the assets of Novellas “St. Georg” GmbH & Co. KG, Novellas “St. Clemens” GmbH & Co. KG, Novellas “St. Lukas” GmbH & Co. KG, Novellas “St. Michaelis” GmbH & Co. KG

Claimant

D’Amico Tankers DAC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (debt Recovery Under Charterparties) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant companies fall within CPR 25.7(b)(ii) for security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs
  3. 3 Quantum of security for costs to be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants, being insolvent companies, fall within CPR 25.7(b)(ii) and security for costs is just and appropriate. The evidence does not show that the companies would be unable to pay the ordered security or that the claim would be stifled. A deduction is made for certain costs, and a 40% discount is applied to reflect likely reductions on assessment. Security is set at £90,000, to be provided by a method to be agreed between the parties.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for costs in the sum of £90,000.
  • Method of providing security to be agreed between the parties or determined by the court if not agreed.