Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors [2022] EWHC 1964 (Ch) (27 July 2022)

Libyan Investment Authority & Ors v King & Ors [2022] EWHC 1964 (Ch) (27 July 2022)

Security for costs is ordered because the claimants, particularly LIA and UK, failed to demonstrate sufficient liquid assets or willingness to pay adverse costs orders, enforcement in Libya is impractical, and the disclosed assets are inadequate or unreliable. There was no culpable delay or prejudice to the claimants from the timing of the application.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1964 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Libyan Investment Authority; Claimant: LIA Advisory Services (UK) Limited; Claimant: Maplecross Holdings Investment Company Limited; Defendant: Roger King; Defendant: International Group Limited; Defendant: Beeson Property Investments Limited; Defendant: Stoke Park Estates; Defendant: Charles Merry; Defendant: Conrad Strategic Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Jurisdictional Issues, Sanctions and Asset Freezes
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Costs Orders Jurisdictional Issues Sanctions and Asset Freezes

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Libyan Investment Authority

Claimant

LIA Advisory Services (UK) Limited

Claimant

Maplecross Holdings Investment Company Limited

Claimant

Roger King

Defendant

International Group Limited

Defendant

Beeson Property Investments Limited

Defendant

Stoke Park Estates

Defendant

Charles Merry

Defendant

Conrad Strategic Partners Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimants under CPR 25
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are able to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the application should affect the order

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered because the claimants, particularly LIA and UK, failed to demonstrate sufficient liquid assets or willingness to pay adverse costs orders, enforcement in Libya is impractical, and the disclosed assets are inadequate or unreliable. There was no culpable delay or prejudice to the claimants from the timing of the application.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for costs in the sum of £1,900,000 by payment into court
  • If claimants have alternative proposals for security, these may be revisited at the consequentials hearing