Somerset-Leeke & Anor v Kay Trustees & Anor [2003] EWHC 1243 (Ch) (01 May 2003)

Security for costs was refused because requiring asset disclosure from a non-Convention resident would be discriminatory, enforcement in Monaco is not unduly difficult, and there was insufficient evidence that assets were moved to frustrate enforcement or that the company could not meet costs.

Citation: [2003] EWHC 1243 (Ch)
Parties: Claimant: Somerset-Leeke; Claimant: Brunel Trustees Ltd; Defendant: Kay Trustees; Defendant: Kay Trustees & Anr
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 May 2003
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Appeal From Master's Decision Refusing Security for Costs
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Judgments, Discrimination in Procedure

Civil Procedure Security for Costs Jurisdiction Enforcement of Judgments Discrimination in Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Somerset-Leeke

Claimant

Brunel Trustees Ltd

Claimant

Kay Trustees

Defendant

Kay Trustees & Anr

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Master's Decision Refusing Security for Costs

Legal Issues

1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a claimant resident outside the jurisdiction but not in a Brussels/Lugano State
2 Whether the claimant's residence or asset location justifies security for costs
3 Whether procedural grounds for security for costs were properly identified and evidenced

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed