Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston & Anor

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston & Anor

The refusal to adjourn the hearing on security for costs was procedurally unfair as the claimant was denied the opportunity to respond to late-served expert evidence. The order for security was excessive and not supported by sufficient evidence of additional enforcement costs in Romania. However, the default judgment entered for non-payment of security stands, as there was no appeal against the refusal of a stay and no compelling reason to set aside the judgment.

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
Civil Libel / Appeal From Order for Security for Costs; Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order for security for costs would have been reduced but default judgment stands.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Equality of Arms, Adjournment, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Defamation Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Equality of Arms Adjournment Default Judgment

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 10 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

Civil Libel / Appeal From Order for Security for Costs; Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to adjourn the hearing on security for costs was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the order for security for costs was excessive and justified
  3. 3 Whether the default judgment should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to adjourn the hearing on security for costs was procedurally unfair as the claimant was denied the opportunity to respond to late-served expert evidence. The order for security was excessive and not supported by sufficient evidence of additional enforcement costs in Romania. However, the default judgment entered for non-payment of security stands, as there was no appeal against the refusal of a stay and no compelling reason to set aside the judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order for security for costs would have been reduced but default judgment stands.

Orders

  • Security for costs should have been set at £80,000, not £125,000, but this is academic as default judgment stands.
  • No order setting aside the default judgment.