Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2025] EWHC 2757 (Ch) (07 October 2025)

Lorimer-Wing v Hashmi [2025] EWHC 2757 (Ch) (07 October 2025)

Given the fresh evidence suggesting the underlying judgment may have been procured by fraud and that the costs orders relied upon for security may not stand, it would be wrong to order security for costs and risk procedural unfairness or impede resolution of the substantive issues.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2757 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Paul Lorimer-Wing; Respondent: Idrees Hashmi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Security for Costs in Ongoing Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; application to adduce further evidence and amend Grounds of Appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Debarring Orders, Unfair Prejudice Petition, Fraud on the Court, Expert Evidence, Costs Orders, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Security for Costs Debarring Orders Unfair Prejudice Petition Fraud on the Court Expert Evidence +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Lorimer-Wing

Appellant

Idrees Hashmi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Security for Costs in Ongoing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the appellant in the context of an appeal where underlying costs orders and judgments are challenged as procured by fraud
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct in not paying costs orders justifies security for costs
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness and Article 6 rights are engaged by the making of a security for costs order in these circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Given the fresh evidence suggesting the underlying judgment may have been procured by fraud and that the costs orders relied upon for security may not stand, it would be wrong to order security for costs and risk procedural unfairness or impede resolution of the substantive issues.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed; application to adduce further evidence and amend Grounds of Appeal granted.

Orders

  • Dismissal of Mr Hashmi's application for security for costs.
  • Permission granted to Mr Lorimer-Wing to adduce further evidence and amend his Grounds of Appeal.