Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors [2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch) (29 November 2016)

Holyoake & Anor v Candy & Ors [2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch) (29 November 2016)

The defendants' renewed application for security for costs is not an abuse of process because new evidence has cast material doubt on the reliability of the claimants' previous asset disclosures, particularly regarding Mr Holyoake's interest in Iceland Seafood International and the availability of sale proceeds. The after-the-event insurance is insufficient to cover the likely recoverable costs, and Hotblack Holdings Limited has no other assets. Mr Holyoake's ability to meet a costs order is uncertain. Therefore, further security for costs is justified.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch)
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 in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Abuse of Process, Company Inability to Pay Costs, After the Event Insurance, Joint and Several Liability for Costs
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Abuse of Process Company Inability to Pay Costs After the Event Insurance Joint and Several Liability for 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 4 Authorities cited 13 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' after-the-event insurance and Mr Holyoake's assets are sufficient to meet a potential costs order
  3. 3 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against Hotblack Holdings Limited

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' renewed application for security for costs is not an abuse of process because new evidence has cast material doubt on the reliability of the claimants' previous asset disclosures, particularly regarding Mr Holyoake's interest in Iceland Seafood International and the availability of sale proceeds. The after-the-event insurance is insufficient to cover the likely recoverable costs, and Hotblack Holdings Limited has no other assets. Mr Holyoake's ability to meet a costs order is uncertain. Therefore, further security for costs is justified.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Claimants to provide further security for costs in addition to the after-the-event insurance policy, by payment into court or bank guarantee, in an amount to be determined.