Te Hsing Maritime SA v CertAsig SA & Anor [2012] EWHC 2577 (Comm) (15 June 2012)

Te Hsing Maritime SA v CertAsig SA & Anor [2012] EWHC 2577 (Comm) (15 June 2012)

The evidence did not establish that enforcement of an English costs judgment in Taiwan would involve significant additional obstacles or burdens, nor did it quantify any such additional costs. The Second Claimant is a substantial company with assets, and the Defendants have potential security via general average liability. Therefore, it is not just to order security for costs.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2577 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: First Claimant; Claimant: Second Claimant; Defendant: First Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Pre Trial, Application Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Constructive Total Loss, General Average, Marine Insurance
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Maritime Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Constructive Total Loss General Average Marine Insurance

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Claimant

Claimant

Second Claimant

Claimant

First Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Pre Trial, Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against claimants resident in Taiwan under CPR 25.13
  2. 2 Whether enforcement of an English costs judgment in Taiwan involves additional obstacles or burdens compared to Brussels or Lugano states
  3. 3 Whether the general average claim or ATE policy affects the appropriateness of ordering security

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that enforcement of an English costs judgment in Taiwan would involve significant additional obstacles or burdens, nor did it quantify any such additional costs. The Second Claimant is a substantial company with assets, and the Defendants have potential security via general average liability. Therefore, it is not just to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs is dismissed.