Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors v Mehta & Ors

Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors v Mehta & Ors

Given the compromise of the security for costs application, the history of engagement and shortcomings on both sides, and consistent with authorities and CPR 44.2, it is not appropriate to make any costs order; the proper order is no order as to costs.

Parties
Claimant: Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation) and others; Defendant: Mehta and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs), Costs Ruling
Outcome
No order as to costs on the security for costs application.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Discretion, ATE Insurance, Case Management

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation) and others

Claimant

Mehta and Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs), Costs Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the Active Defendants are entitled to costs following compromise of a security for costs application
  2. 2 Appropriate exercise of court's discretion in costs where application is compromised

Ratio Decidendi

Given the compromise of the security for costs application, the history of engagement and shortcomings on both sides, and consistent with authorities and CPR 44.2, it is not appropriate to make any costs order; the proper order is no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs on the security for costs application.

Orders

  • No order as to costs on the security for costs application.