Asertis Ltd v Lewis Barry Bloch

Asertis Ltd v Lewis Barry Bloch

There is reason to believe Asertis Ltd will not be able to meet an adverse costs order due to its loss-making status, uncertain asset realisability, and lack of up-to-date financial evidence. The ATE insurance policy, even with the anti-avoidance endorsement, does not provide sufficient protection to the defendant due to its limitations, termination provisions, lack of direct enforceability, and coverage gaps. Therefore, security for costs by way of payment into court is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Asertis Ltd; Defendant: Lewis Barry Bloch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (insolvency/companies) / Ruling on Security for Costs Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, ATE Insurance, Litigation Funding, Director's Duties
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Security for Costs ATE Insurance Litigation Funding Director's Duties

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 20
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asertis Ltd

Claimant

Lewis Barry Bloch

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (insolvency/companies) / Ruling on Security for Costs Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is reason to believe Asertis Ltd will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so
  2. 2 Whether the ATE insurance policy provides sufficient protection to the defendant against adverse costs
  3. 3 What amount and form of security for costs is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

There is reason to believe Asertis Ltd will not be able to meet an adverse costs order due to its loss-making status, uncertain asset realisability, and lack of up-to-date financial evidence. The ATE insurance policy, even with the anti-avoidance endorsement, does not provide sufficient protection to the defendant due to its limitations, termination provisions, lack of direct enforceability, and coverage gaps. Therefore, security for costs by way of payment into court is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Asertis Ltd to pay £101,317.31 into court within 28 days, representing 60% of defendant’s incurred costs (excluding costs of the security application)
  • Further staged payments into court to be made: 60% of estimated costs incurred by the date of the costs management order, and 70% of the sum agreed or approved for estimated costs, both within 28 days of the costs management order