Premier Motorauctions Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP & Anor

Premier Motorauctions Ltd & Anor v Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP & Anor

ATE insurance policies without anti-avoidance provisions do not provide sufficient assurance that defendants’ costs will be paid if ordered, thus there is reason to believe the claimants will be unable to pay and jurisdiction to order security for costs is satisfied.

Parties
Claimant: Premier Motorauctions Ltd (in liquidation); Claimant: Premier Motorauctions; Defendant: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; Defendant: Lloyds Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal Against High Court Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; security for costs ordered against claimants.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, After the Event Insurance, Company Insolvency, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Insolvency Insurance Law Security for Costs After the Event Insurance Company Insolvency Access to Justice

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Premier Motorauctions Ltd (in liquidation)

Claimant

Premier Motorauctions

Claimant

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Defendant

Lloyds Bank PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Interlocutory Appeal Against High Court Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ATE insurance without anti-avoidance provisions constitutes adequate security for costs
  2. 2 Whether ATE insurance can be considered at the jurisdictional stage under CPR 25.13
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against insolvent claimants relying on ATE insurance

Ratio Decidendi

ATE insurance policies without anti-avoidance provisions do not provide sufficient assurance that defendants’ costs will be paid if ordered, thus there is reason to believe the claimants will be unable to pay and jurisdiction to order security for costs is satisfied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; security for costs ordered against claimants.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1–3 of the High Court order set aside.
  • Claimants to provide security for each defendant’s costs: £2,000,000 for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and £2,000,000 for Lloyds Bank PLC.