LIBYAN INVESTMENT AUTHORITY & Ors v ROGER KING & Ors

LIBYAN INVESTMENT AUTHORITY & Ors v ROGER KING & Ors

Security for costs is ordered because neither UK nor LIA have demonstrated sufficient liquid assets or certainty of support to meet a substantial costs order promptly; LIA's lack of candour and asset disclosure raises real doubts about enforceability; delay argument fails as no prejudice or culpable delay is shown.

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
Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Security for Costs Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Company Insolvency, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Delay in Application
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Company Insolvency Enforcement of Costs Orders Delay in Application

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against claimants
  2. 2 Whether UK claimant is a 'good mark' for costs
  3. 3 Whether LIA's asset position justifies security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered because neither UK nor LIA have demonstrated sufficient liquid assets or certainty of support to meet a substantial costs order promptly; LIA's lack of candour and asset disclosure raises real doubts about enforceability; delay argument fails as no prejudice or culpable delay is shown.

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 propose alternative security methods, point may be revisited at consequentials hearing