Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors [2011] EWHC 2183 (Ch) (12 August 2011)

Ackerman v Ackerman & Ors [2011] EWHC 2183 (Ch) (12 August 2011)

The court found that Joseph Ackerman had taken steps in relation to his assets that made enforcement of a costs order difficult, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g). The court was not satisfied that Ackerman had made full and frank disclosure of his financial position and considered that he had access to more funds than revealed, including potential family support. The court determined that security for costs in the sum of £600,000 was fair and appropriate, with £375,000 to be secured by a first charge on the matrimonial home, balancing the need for security with the risk of stifling the claim.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2183 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Joseph Ackerman; Defendant: Naomi Ackerman; Defendant: Barry Ackerman; Defendant: Andrew Thornhill; Defendant: Bana One Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interpretation of Settlement Agreements, Powers of Attorney, Asset Transfers, Costs Management
Civil Procedure Family Business Disputes Trusts and Estates Security for Costs Interpretation of Settlement Agreements Powers of Attorney Asset Transfers Costs 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Ackerman

Claimant

Naomi Ackerman

Defendant

Barry Ackerman

Defendant

Andrew Thornhill

Defendant

Bana One Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets making enforcement of a costs order difficult under CPR 25.13(2)(g)
  2. 2 Whether it is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs and in what amount
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would stifle a genuine claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Joseph Ackerman had taken steps in relation to his assets that made enforcement of a costs order difficult, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(g). The court was not satisfied that Ackerman had made full and frank disclosure of his financial position and considered that he had access to more funds than revealed, including potential family support. The court determined that security for costs in the sum of £600,000 was fair and appropriate, with £375,000 to be secured by a first charge on the matrimonial home, balancing the need for security with the risk of stifling the claim.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for costs in the sum of £600,000, of which £375,000 may be furnished by way of a first charge on 38 Green Lane, Hendon.
  • Further directions to be given regarding timing and form of the balance of security.