Somerset-Leeke & Anor v Kay Trustees & Anor

Somerset-Leeke & Anor v Kay Trustees & Anor

Security for costs was refused as the application was discriminatory, enforcement in Monaco is not problematic, and there was evidence of sufficient assets; no grounds under CPR 25.13 were established.

Parties
Claimant: Somerset-Leeke; Claimant: Brunel Trustees Ltd; Defendant: Kay Trustees; Defendant: Another Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Residence Out of Jurisdiction, Company Liability, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Residence Out of Jurisdiction Company Liability Enforcement of Judgments

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

Parties

Somerset-Leeke

Claimant

Brunel Trustees Ltd

Claimant

Kay Trustees

Defendant

Another Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against claimants resident outside jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether company claimant is unable to pay defendant’s costs
  3. 3 Whether claimants have taken steps to make enforcement of costs difficult

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused as the application was discriminatory, enforcement in Monaco is not problematic, and there was evidence of sufficient assets; no grounds under CPR 25.13 were established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed