Palmali Shipping S.A. v Litasco S.A.

Palmali Shipping S.A. v Litasco S.A.

The court held that, on the evidence as it stood, security for costs was appropriate because there was a real risk that a future costs order in favour of the defendant would go unsatisfied, and the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to avoid the need for security or to establish a risk of stifling the claim. The court ordered security in the sum of £900,000 in three tranches, with liberty to apply, and adjourned the application for further security. The court also ordered indemnity costs for withdrawn claims due to the claimant's conduct.

Parties
Claimant: Palmali Shipping S. A.; Defendant: Litasco S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs and Costs Orders
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part; costs orders made against claimant.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Disclosure, Indemnity Costs, Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Costs Orders Disclosure Indemnity Costs Litigation Funding

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

Parties

Palmali Shipping S. A.

Claimant

Litasco S. A.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's funding and insurance arrangements are sufficient to avoid the need for security
  3. 3 Whether there is a risk of stifling the claim if security is ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the evidence as it stood, security for costs was appropriate because there was a real risk that a future costs order in favour of the defendant would go unsatisfied, and the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence to avoid the need for security or to establish a risk of stifling the claim. The court ordered security in the sum of £900,000 in three tranches, with liberty to apply, and adjourned the application for further security. The court also ordered indemnity costs for withdrawn claims due to the claimant's conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part; costs orders made against claimant.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £900,000 in three equal tranches by specified dates.
  • Application for further security adjourned for further consideration within the term.