Mbasogo & Anor v Logo Ltd & Ors

Mbasogo & Anor v Logo Ltd & Ors

Security for costs is justified where parties are outside the jurisdiction and have not provided evidence of means. The appellants' undertaking to hold £105,000 as security is sufficient given the Privy Council's extant costs order. The appellants are also entitled to £25,000 security for costs on the cross-appeal, as the respondents have not shown means and are non-resident.

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
Outcome
applications for security for costs allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Cross Appeal, Costs Orders, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Cross Appeal Costs Orders Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

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 4
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against parties outside the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the form and amount of security offered is adequate and just
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are at risk of non-payment of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is justified where parties are outside the jurisdiction and have not provided evidence of means. The appellants' undertaking to hold £105,000 as security is sufficient given the Privy Council's extant costs order. The appellants are also entitled to £25,000 security for costs on the cross-appeal, as the respondents have not shown means and are non-resident.

Court Disposition

applications for security for costs allowed

Orders

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