Mengi v Hermitage [2012] EWHC 2045 (QB) (20 July 2012)

Mengi v Hermitage [2012] EWHC 2045 (QB) (20 July 2012)

The appeal was allowed because the Master erred in excluding the CFA uplift from the security for costs and in limiting security to 75% of recoverable costs. Given the Deputy Master's findings of substantial obstacles to enforcement in Tanzania due to judicial corruption and the Claimant's means, security should be ordered for the full amount of the Defendant's agreed budget plus a 100% CFA uplift. The court should not require disclosure of the CFA as a precondition for including the uplift, nor should it attempt to tailor the security order to the unpredictable consequences of corruption in the Tanzanian judiciary.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2045
Parties
Claimant: Reginald Mengi; Defendant: Sarah Hermitage
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Appeal Against Master's Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed on both the CFA point and the 75% point; further security for costs to be ordered as sought by the Defendant.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Costs Budgeting, Judicial Corruption, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Defamation Security for Costs Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Costs Budgeting Judicial Corruption Freedom of Expression

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Mengi

Claimant

Sarah Hermitage

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Appeal Against Master's Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should include an uplift for the defendant's CFA success fee without disclosure of the CFA
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be limited to 75% of recoverable costs or the full amount given the risk of enforcement in Tanzania

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Master erred in excluding the CFA uplift from the security for costs and in limiting security to 75% of recoverable costs. Given the Deputy Master's findings of substantial obstacles to enforcement in Tanzania due to judicial corruption and the Claimant's means, security should be ordered for the full amount of the Defendant's agreed budget plus a 100% CFA uplift. The court should not require disclosure of the CFA as a precondition for including the uplift, nor should it attempt to tailor the security order to the unpredictable consequences of corruption in the Tanzanian judiciary.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on both the CFA point and the 75% point; further security for costs to be ordered as sought by the Defendant.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the 75% point.
  • Master's order set aside to the extent appealed.