Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1242 (16 August 2021)

Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1242 (16 August 2021)

The judge was entitled to consider the lack of information about the defendant's funding as relevant in the particular circumstances of the case, and there was no error in principle warranting appellate interference with the exercise of discretion to refuse security for costs.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1242
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Heathfield International LLC; Defendant and Appellant: Axiom Stone (London) Ltd; Defendant: Medecall Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Assignment of Claims, Corporate Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Costs Orders Assignment of Claims Corporate 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heathfield International LLC

Claimant and Respondent

Axiom Stone (London) Ltd

Defendant and Appellant

Medecall Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the funding position of a defendant is relevant to an application for security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing security for costs based on lack of information about defendant's funding

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to consider the lack of information about the defendant's funding as relevant in the particular circumstances of the case, and there was no error in principle warranting appellate interference with the exercise of discretion to refuse security for costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs dismissed
  • No order for security for costs