Dass v Beggs & Anor [2014] EWHC 164 (Ch) (03 February 2014)

Dass v Beggs & Anor [2014] EWHC 164 (Ch) (03 February 2014)

The diversion of sale proceeds to the claimant's son's account did not make enforcement of a costs order more difficult, especially given the bankruptcy context; thus, the gateway under CPR 25.13(2)(g) was not satisfied and permission to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 164 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Ramsey Dass; Defendant: Himeneise Beggs; Defendant: Gabriel Kozub-Beggs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (security for Costs) / Permission to Appeal Against Master's Order Refusing Security for Costs Under CPR 25.13(2)(g)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, CPR 25.13(2)(g), Bankruptcy and Locus Standi, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Property Law Security for Costs CPR 25.13(2)(g) Bankruptcy and Locus Standi Enforcement of Costs Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramsey Dass

Claimant

Himeneise Beggs

Defendant

Gabriel Kozub-Beggs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (security for Costs) / Permission to Appeal Against Master's Order Refusing Security for Costs Under CPR 25.13(2)(g)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant took steps in relation to his assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult under CPR 25.13(2)(g)
  2. 2 Whether the diversion of sale proceeds to the claimant's son's account constituted such a step
  3. 3 Whether the Master's approach to the gateway and discretion under CPR 25.13(2)(g) was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The diversion of sale proceeds to the claimant's son's account did not make enforcement of a costs order more difficult, especially given the bankruptcy context; thus, the gateway under CPR 25.13(2)(g) was not satisfied and permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused