DARREN JAMES POPELY v POPLAR ESTATES LIMITED & Ors

The judge gave sufficient reasons for granting security for costs, having found three grounds under CPR r.25.13 were established and having considered the relevant discretionary factors. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties: Appellant: Darren James Popely; First Respondent: Poplar Estates Limited; Second Respondent: Ronald Popely; Third Respondent: Jane Popely; Fourth Respondent: Harry Popely; Fifth Respondent: Paul Duthie
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 December 2020
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Discretion in Granting Security, Companies Act 2006 S.996, Civil Procedure Rules R.25.13

Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Discretion in Granting Security Companies Act 2006 S.996 Civil Procedure Rules R.25.13

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7

Parties

Darren James Popely

Appellant

Poplar Estates Limited

First Respondent

Ronald Popely

Second Respondent

Jane Popely

Third Respondent

Harry Popely

Fourth Respondent

Paul Duthie

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

1 Whether the judge gave sufficient reasons for granting security for costs
2 Whether the judge properly exercised discretion under CPR r.25.13
3 Whether the grounds for security for costs were established

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Security for costs in the sum of £30,000 to stand as ordered by the lower court