Investment Invoice Financing Ltd v Limehouse Board Mills Ltd

Investment Invoice Financing Ltd v Limehouse Board Mills Ltd

The court has jurisdiction to stay or strike out proceedings brought by an assignee of a claim until the costs of previous related proceedings by the assignor are paid, where the claims are substantially the same and failure to pay prior costs would be an abuse of process. This is distinct from impermissibly imposing security for costs on a new claimant; the order is justified to prevent unfairness to the defendant and abuse of the court’s process.

Parties
Claimant: Investment Invoice Financing Limited; Defendant: Limehouse Board Mills Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of the Mercantile List, Central London Civil Justice Centre
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Assignment of Claims, Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Assignment of Claims Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings Costs Orders

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

Parties

Investment Invoice Financing Limited

Claimant

Limehouse Board Mills Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of the Mercantile List, Central London Civil Justice Centre

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to stay proceedings or strike out a claim unless the assignee (IIF) paid or secured costs previously ordered against the assignor (PSL) in related or prior proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the assignment of claims and substitution of parties can be used to avoid compliance with costs orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to stay or strike out proceedings brought by an assignee of a claim until the costs of previous related proceedings by the assignor are paid, where the claims are substantially the same and failure to pay prior costs would be an abuse of process. This is distinct from impermissibly imposing security for costs on a new claimant; the order is justified to prevent unfairness to the defendant and abuse of the court’s process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order staying the proceedings unless IIF paid or secured the costs previously ordered against PSL is upheld.
  • The claim will be struck out if the specified costs are not paid into court by the deadline.