Sandra Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd

Sandra Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd

Security for costs is ordered against MLS in the sum of £1.75 million, reflecting 50% of the court’s working estimate of the Defendant’s reasonably recoverable costs, less a discount for the ATE insurance (with a risk-weighted deduction). The Arkin cap is not treated as an absolute limit at the interlocutory stage,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Sandra Bailey & Others; Defendant: GlaxoSmithkline UK Limited; Additional Party: Managed Legal Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Litigation Funding, ATE Insurance, Costs Orders, Third Party Funding
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Litigation Funding ATE Insurance Costs Orders Third Party Funding

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Bailey & Others

Claimant

GlaxoSmithkline UK Limited

Defendant

Managed Legal Solutions Limited

Additional Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the litigation funder (MLS) under CPR r.25.14
  2. 2 Whether the Arkin cap limits the quantum of security for costs at the interlocutory stage
  3. 3 What weight should be given to the Claimants’ ATE insurance in assessing security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered against MLS in the sum of £1.75 million, reflecting 50% of the court’s working estimate of the Defendant’s reasonably recoverable costs, less a discount for the ATE insurance (with a risk-weighted deduction). The Arkin cap is not treated as an absolute limit at the interlocutory stage, but its possible application at trial is recognised. The absence of an anti-avoidance clause in the ATE policy means it cannot be treated as full security. A cross-undertaking in damages is required from the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

  • MLS to provide security for costs in the sum of £1.75 million by payment into court or other agreed arrangement within 28 days of the order being sealed
  • Proceedings to be stayed if security is not provided within the time specified, with further relief available to the Defendant after two months of non-compliance