Mbasogo & Anor v Logo Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 608 (05 April 2006)

Mbasogo & Anor v Logo Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 608 (05 April 2006)

Security for costs is justified against both appellants and respondents due to their residence outside the jurisdiction and lack of evidence as to means, with the quantum and form of security reflecting related Privy Council costs orders and the sums estimated as reasonable for the appeal and cross-appeal.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 608
Parties
Claimant/applicant: President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo; Claimant/applicant: The Republic of Equatorial Guinea; Defendant/respondent: Logo Limited; Defendant/respondent: Systems Design Limited; Defendant/respondent: Greg Wales; Defendant/respondent: Simon Francis Mann; Defendant/respondent: Eli Calil; Defendant/respondent: Severo Moto
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Applications for security for costs by both parties allowed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Appeal, Cross Appeal, Costs Orders, International Parties
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Appeal Cross Appeal Costs Orders International Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo

Claimant/applicant

The Republic of Equatorial Guinea

Claimant/applicant

Logo Limited

Defendant/respondent

Systems Design Limited

Defendant/respondent

Greg Wales

Defendant/respondent

Simon Francis Mann

Defendant/respondent

Eli Calil

Defendant/respondent

Severo Moto

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the appellants for the respondents' appeal costs
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the respondents for the appellants' cross-appeal costs
  3. 3 Appropriate form and quantum of security given related Privy Council proceedings and outstanding costs orders

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is justified against both appellants and respondents due to their residence outside the jurisdiction and lack of evidence as to means, with the quantum and form of security reflecting related Privy Council costs orders and the sums estimated as reasonable for the appeal and cross-appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs by both parties allowed.

Orders

  • Appellants to provide security for costs for the first, second, and fourth respondents in the form of an undertaking to hold £105,000 to their account, to be set off against any Privy Council costs order.
  • Respondents to provide security for costs to the appellants in the sum of £25,000 in respect of the cross-appeal.