Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Limited

Adam Robert Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Limited

Security for costs is ordered against the four corporate claimants because the gateway conditions under CPR 25.13(2) are satisfied, there is no culpable delay, and the ATE insurance policy in its current form is inadequate due to lack of anti-avoidance provisions and direct indemnity. The appropriate quantum is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Adam Robert Giaquinto; Claimant: Capital International (Nominees) Limited; Claimant: Gilbo Management Limited; Claimant: HCT Management Limited; Claimant: James Robert Edwards; Claimant: Jonathan Charles Hammond; Claimant: Montagu Square Limited; Claimant: Philip Harvey Barnett; Claimant: Stuart James Anderson; Defendant: ITI Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted against the four corporate claimants, subject to a short period to secure acceptable ATE terms.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, ATE Insurance, Costs Budgeting, Discretionary Remedies
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs ATE Insurance Costs Budgeting Discretionary Remedies

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

Parties

Adam Robert Giaquinto

Claimant

Capital International (Nominees) Limited

Claimant

Gilbo Management Limited

Claimant

HCT Management Limited

Claimant

James Robert Edwards

Claimant

Jonathan Charles Hammond

Claimant

Montagu Square Limited

Claimant

Philip Harvey Barnett

Claimant

Stuart James Anderson

Claimant

ITI Capital Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the corporate claimants
  2. 2 Whether the ATE insurance policy provides adequate security for costs
  3. 3 What is the appropriate quantum and basis for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered against the four corporate claimants because the gateway conditions under CPR 25.13(2) are satisfied, there is no culpable delay, and the ATE insurance policy in its current form is inadequate due to lack of anti-avoidance provisions and direct indemnity. The appropriate quantum is £259,200, calculated as £80,000 for incurred costs (65% of claimed) and £179,200 for estimated costs (100% of agreed budgeted costs), apportioned among the corporate claimants. No security is ordered for the costs of the application or other contingent applications. The claimants are given a short period to secure acceptable ATE terms, failing which payment into court is required.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted against the four corporate claimants, subject to a short period to secure acceptable ATE terms.

Orders

  • Security for costs in the total sum of £259,200 to be provided by the four corporate claimants, apportioned severally, either by acceptable ATE insurance with anti-avoidance and direct payment provisions or by payment into court.
  • No security ordered for the costs of the security for costs application, strike-out application, or Request for Further Information application.