Gemyat Gemi Insa VE & Anor v Oakley & Ors
There was no evidence that the order for security for costs would stifle a genuine claim, and the judge correctly found that the general power under CPR 25.12 allowed for security for costs in applications to remove arbitrators. There was no realistic prospect of success on appeal.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Gemyat Gemi Insa Ve & Anr; Defendant/respondent: Oakley & Ors
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 October 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Removal of Arbitrators, Appeal Out of Time, Arbitration Award Challenge
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gemyat Gemi Insa Ve & Anr
Claimant/appellant
Oakley & Ors
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order for security for costs was oppressive and stifled a genuine claim
- 2 Whether security for costs can be ordered in applications to remove arbitrators under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996
- 3 Whether there was jurisdiction to order security for costs in light of a reciprocal treaty between Turkey and the United Kingdom
Ratio Decidendi
There was no evidence that the order for security for costs would stifle a genuine claim, and the judge correctly found that the general power under CPR 25.12 allowed for security for costs in applications to remove arbitrators. There was no realistic prospect of success on appeal.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment