Ure Energy Ltd v Notting Hill Genesis [2021] EWHC 2695 (Comm) (08 October 2021)

Ure Energy Ltd v Notting Hill Genesis [2021] EWHC 2695 (Comm) (08 October 2021)

Although the court had jurisdiction to order security for costs against the impecunious claimant, the existence of ATE insurance, discounted for risk, provided adequate security for the limited period up to the CCMC. The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence that an order for security would stifle the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2695 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: URE Energy Limited; Defendant: Notting Hill Genesis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Prior to CCMC
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused at this stage; issue to be revisited at CCMC.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, ATE Insurance, Discretionary Relief, Impecuniosity, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs ATE Insurance Discretionary Relief Impecuniosity Access to Justice

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

URE Energy Limited

Claimant

Notting Hill Genesis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Prior to CCMC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an impecunious claimant company under CPR 25.13(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the existence of ATE insurance provides sufficient security to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether an order for security would stifle the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Although the court had jurisdiction to order security for costs against the impecunious claimant, the existence of ATE insurance, discounted for risk, provided adequate security for the limited period up to the CCMC. The claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence that an order for security would stifle the claim, but the ATE policy, with an agreed loss payee clause, was sufficient for present purposes. The issue of security should be revisited at the CCMC when more information is available.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused at this stage; issue to be revisited at CCMC.

Orders

  • No order for security for costs at present; issue to be reconsidered at CCMC.
  • Claimant to provide a draft loss payee clause acceptable to the court if not already executed.