Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors

Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors

The application for security for costs failed because the only relevant step taken by the claimants (settling shares in Loxley & Brake Ltd in trust) was of minimal value and did not justify an order for security. The claimants' bankruptcy meant earlier asset transfers were spent and not available for enforcement. The claimants' late but clear witness statement resolved any ambiguity, and there was no basis for adverse inferences. Costs should follow the event, with the defendants to pay the claimants' costs on the standard basis.

Parties
Claimant: Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake; Claimant: Andrew Young Brake; Defendant: Geoffrey William Guy; Defendant: The Chedington Court Estate Limited; Defendant: Axnoller Events Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs; Costs Determination
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; costs awarded to claimants on the standard basis.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Costs Orders Interlocutory Applications

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake

Claimant

Andrew Young Brake

Claimant

Geoffrey William Guy

Defendant

The Chedington Court Estate Limited

Defendant

Axnoller Events Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(g)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants took steps in relation to their assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult
  3. 3 Which party should bear the costs of the application and on what basis

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs failed because the only relevant step taken by the claimants (settling shares in Loxley & Brake Ltd in trust) was of minimal value and did not justify an order for security. The claimants' bankruptcy meant earlier asset transfers were spent and not available for enforcement. The claimants' late but clear witness statement resolved any ambiguity, and there was no basis for adverse inferences. Costs should follow the event, with the defendants to pay the claimants' costs on the standard basis.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed; costs awarded to claimants on the standard basis.

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and severally to pay the claimants’ costs of the application on the standard basis.