Jirehouse Capital & Anor v Beller & Anor

Jirehouse Capital & Anor v Beller & Anor

CPR 25.13(2)(c) is not limited to limited companies and includes unlimited companies; the threshold for ordering security for costs is whether there is reason to believe the company will be unable to pay, not proof on the balance of probabilities.

Parties
Appellant: Jirehouse Capital; Appellant: Jirehouse Capital Trustees Ltd; Respondent: Beller; Respondent: Beller & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interpretation of CPR 25.13(2)(c), Companies Act 1985 S 726
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Interpretation of CPR 25.13(2)(c) Companies Act 1985 S 726

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jirehouse Capital

Appellant

Jirehouse Capital Trustees Ltd

Appellant

Beller

Respondent

Beller & Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR 25.13(2)(c) allows security for costs orders against unlimited companies registered in Great Britain
  2. 2 Whether the test under CPR 25.13(2)(c) requires satisfaction on the balance of probabilities that the company will be unable to pay costs

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 25.13(2)(c) is not limited to limited companies and includes unlimited companies; the threshold for ordering security for costs is whether there is reason to believe the company will be unable to pay, not proof on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Security for costs order against the appellants stands
  • No change to the High Court's order