Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors

Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors

The defendants are entitled to bring a renewed application for security for costs because subsequent evidence revealed material facts not reasonably available at the time of the first application, undermining the reliability of the claimants’ asset position. Hotblack Holdings Limited is unable to pay the defendants’ likely costs, the ATE insurance is insufficient, and Mr Holyoake’s assets do not provide adequate assurance of prompt payment. Security for costs is therefore just and appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Mark Alan Holyoake; Claimant: Hotblack Holdings Limited; Defendant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; Defendant: Christian Peter Candy; Defendant: Richard Steven Williams; Defendant: Steven Miles Smith; Defendant: Timothy James Dean; Defendant: CPC Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Abuse of Process, Company Law, Costs
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Abuse of Process Company Law Costs

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

Parties

Mark Alan Holyoake

Claimant

Hotblack Holdings Limited

Claimant

Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy

Defendant

Christian Peter Candy

Defendant

Richard Steven Williams

Defendant

Steven Miles Smith

Defendant

Timothy James Dean

Defendant

CPC Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' renewed application for security for costs is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' assets and insurance are sufficient to avoid an order for security
  3. 3 Assessment of recoverable costs and adequacy of ATE insurance

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants are entitled to bring a renewed application for security for costs because subsequent evidence revealed material facts not reasonably available at the time of the first application, undermining the reliability of the claimants’ asset position. Hotblack Holdings Limited is unable to pay the defendants’ likely costs, the ATE insurance is insufficient, and Mr Holyoake’s assets do not provide adequate assurance of prompt payment. Security for costs is therefore just and appropriate.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Hotblack Holdings Limited to provide security for costs in the sum of £5.5m, with the ATE policy standing for £4m
  • Further directions to be determined regarding provision of the balance of security