Pisante & Ors v Logothetis & Ors

Pisante & Ors v Logothetis & Ors

The court has jurisdiction to order security for costs against the Second to Fourth Claimants, as they are resident outside Contracting States and there is a real risk that assets in Contracting States may not be available for enforcement, satisfying the Nasser condition. The evidence provided was insufficiently transparent and did not negate enforcement obstacles. Security for costs is appropriate in the sum of £805,000.

Parties
Claimant: Victor Pisante; Claimant: BCA Shipping Investment Navigation Limited; Claimant: Swindon Holdings & Finance Limited; Claimant: Castor; Defendant: George Logothetis; Defendant: Lomar Corporation Limited; Defendant: Lomar Shipmanagement Limited; Defendant: Libra Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Judgments, Corporate Insolvency
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Jurisdiction Enforcement of Judgments Corporate Insolvency

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Pisante

Claimant

BCA Shipping Investment Navigation Limited

Claimant

Swindon Holdings & Finance Limited

Claimant

Castor

Claimant

George Logothetis

Defendant

Lomar Corporation Limited

Defendant

Lomar Shipmanagement Limited

Defendant

Libra Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order security for costs against claimants resident outside Contracting States
  2. 2 Whether assets in Contracting States negate enforcement obstacles
  3. 3 Whether the Second to Fourth Claimants will be unable to pay Defendants’ costs if ordered to do so

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to order security for costs against the Second to Fourth Claimants, as they are resident outside Contracting States and there is a real risk that assets in Contracting States may not be available for enforcement, satisfying the Nasser condition. The evidence provided was insufficiently transparent and did not negate enforcement obstacles. Security for costs is appropriate in the sum of £805,000.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part.

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for costs in the sum of £805,000.
  • Form of security to be agreed between parties, either by bank guarantee or payment into court.