Vacek & Ors v Triload Invest S.R.O (In Liquidation) & Ors

Vacek & Ors v Triload Invest S.R.O (In Liquidation) & Ors

The court found that Triload Invest s.r.o, being in liquidation, is presumed unable to pay costs and has not displaced this presumption. However, ordering security for costs would stifle its bona fide and genuine claim, and the presence of forty Individual Applicants, who are jointly and severally liable for costs, weighs against making an order for security. The Applicants’ breach of full and frank disclosure was addressed by a costs order, and no further penalty is justified. The application for security for costs is therefore refused.

Parties
Applicant: Robert Vacek; Applicant: Daniel Krivanek; Applicant: Jiri Kubelka; Respondent: Triload Invest s.r.o (in Liquidation); Respondent: 40 others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Liquidation, Jurisdictional Hurdles, Discretionary Factors in Security for Costs, Breach of Statutory Duty
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Liquidation Jurisdictional Hurdles Discretionary Factors in Security for Costs Breach of Statutory Duty

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

Parties

Robert Vacek

Applicant

Daniel Krivanek

Applicant

Jiri Kubelka

Applicant

Triload Invest s.r.o (in Liquidation)

Respondent

40 others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against Triload Invest s.r.o under CPR 25.13(1) and 25.13(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against all Applicants under CPR 3.1(3)(a) and 3.1(5)
  3. 3 Whether the inability of Triload Invest s.r.o to pay costs is established

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Triload Invest s.r.o, being in liquidation, is presumed unable to pay costs and has not displaced this presumption. However, ordering security for costs would stifle its bona fide and genuine claim, and the presence of forty Individual Applicants, who are jointly and severally liable for costs, weighs against making an order for security. The Applicants’ breach of full and frank disclosure was addressed by a costs order, and no further penalty is justified. The application for security for costs is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs is made against Triload Invest s.r.o or the Individual Applicants.
  • The Applicants’ previous costs order for breach of disclosure stands.