The Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2005] EWHC 2309 (Comm) (18 October 2005)

The Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2005] EWHC 2309 (Comm) (18 October 2005)

Where parties have reached a binding agreement as to the amount of security for costs, the court will not order further security unless the agreement is void or voidable for mistake or misrepresentation, or is inapplicable to the circumstances as they have developed. The agreement for £30,000 security was valid and not void for mistake, and the parties are held to their bargain despite subsequent changes in the scope and cost of proceedings.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2309 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: The Republic of Kazakhstan; Defendant: ISTIL Group Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application for Further Security for Costs / Application for Further Security for Costs Under CPR 25.13.2(a) and (g)
Outcome
Application for further security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Arbitration Act 1996 S.67 and S.68, Contractual Compromise, Mistake in Contract, Jurisdiction of Court in Arbitration Matters
Civil Procedure Arbitration Security for Costs Arbitration Act 1996 S.67 and S.68 Contractual Compromise Mistake in Contract Jurisdiction of Court in Arbitration Matters

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Republic of Kazakhstan

Claimant

ISTIL Group Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application for Further Security for Costs / Application for Further Security for Costs Under CPR 25.13.2(a) and (g)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can order further security for costs after parties have agreed a fixed sum
  2. 2 Whether the agreement for £30,000 security is void or voidable for mistake
  3. 3 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances justifying further security

Ratio Decidendi

Where parties have reached a binding agreement as to the amount of security for costs, the court will not order further security unless the agreement is void or voidable for mistake or misrepresentation, or is inapplicable to the circumstances as they have developed. The agreement for £30,000 security was valid and not void for mistake, and the parties are held to their bargain despite subsequent changes in the scope and cost of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for further security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Parties held to the agreement for £30,000 security for costs covering the entirety of the Commercial Court proceedings, not including any appeal