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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Active Defendants are entitled to costs following compromise of a security for costs application
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment