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)

There was procedural unfairness in refusing the Claimant an adjournment to respond to late expert evidence, and the evidence did not justify the quantum of security ordered; however, the regularly entered judgment for non-compliance with the security order stands as the refusal of a stay was not appealed and there is no basis to set aside the judgment.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 231
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
Libel Claim (security for Costs Appeal) / Appeal From Order for Security for Costs; Application to Set Aside Judgment Entered for Non Compliance
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (would have reduced security to £80,000), but judgment for Defendants stands; no order setting aside judgment.
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 4 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

Libel Claim (security for Costs Appeal) / Appeal From Order for Security for Costs; Application to Set Aside Judgment Entered for Non Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of an adjournment and admission of late evidence was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of security for costs ordered was justified by evidence of additional enforcement costs in Romania
  3. 3 Whether the judgment entered for non-compliance with security order should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

There was procedural unfairness in refusing the Claimant an adjournment to respond to late expert evidence, and the evidence did not justify the quantum of security ordered; however, the regularly entered judgment for non-compliance with the security order stands as the refusal of a stay was not appealed and there is no basis to set aside the judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (would have reduced security to £80,000), but judgment for Defendants stands; no order setting aside judgment.