Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston & Anor [2006] EWHC 231 (QB) (07 March 2006)

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston & Anor [2006] EWHC 231 (QB) (07 March 2006)

The refusal of adjournment deprived the claimant of procedural fairness, as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to expert evidence on Romanian law. However, the regularly entered judgment stands, and the security for costs order should have been set at £80,000, not £125,000, based on evidence of enforcement costs differential. The appeal succeeds on grounds of procedural unfairness and quantum, but does not affect the standing judgment.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 231 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Prince Radu of Hohenzollern; Defendant: Marco Houston; Defendant: Sena-Julia Publicatus Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment, Appeal Against Security for Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; security for costs quantum should be £80,000, but judgment stands.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Equality of Arms, Adjournment, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Defamation Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Equality of Arms Adjournment Appeal 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern

Claimant

Marco Houston

Defendant

Sena-Julia Publicatus Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment, Appeal Against Security for Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of adjournment deprived the claimant of a fair opportunity to respond to evidence
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered given Romania's imminent EU accession
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of security (£125,000) was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal of adjournment deprived the claimant of procedural fairness, as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to expert evidence on Romanian law. However, the regularly entered judgment stands, and the security for costs order should have been set at £80,000, not £125,000, based on evidence of enforcement costs differential. The appeal succeeds on grounds of procedural unfairness and quantum, but does not affect the standing judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; security for costs quantum should be £80,000, but judgment stands.

Orders

  • Security for costs order varied to £80,000 (academic, as judgment stands)
  • Fresh evidence admitted for appeal