Andrew Jonathan Milne v Open Access Finance Limited & Anor

Andrew Jonathan Milne v Open Access Finance Limited & Anor

The evidence does not establish on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make enforcement of a costs order difficult. The jurisdictional gateway under CPR r 25.13(2)(g) is not satisfied; the claimant's conduct and explanations, while questionable, do not amount to asset concealment or dissipation sufficient to justify security for costs.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Jonathan Milne; First Defendant: Open Access Finance Limited; Second Defendant: Mr Marek Szymanski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Security for Costs
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peer to Peer Lending, Asset Disclosure, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Financial Services Security for Costs Peer to Peer Lending Asset Disclosure Enforcement of Costs Orders

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

Parties

Andrew Jonathan Milne

Claimant

Open Access Finance Limited

First Defendant

Mr Marek Szymanski

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him under CPR r 25.13(2)(g)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant failed to give his address in the claim form or gave an incorrect address under CPR r 25.13(2)(e)

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence does not establish on a balance of probabilities that the claimant has taken steps in relation to his assets that would make enforcement of a costs order difficult. The jurisdictional gateway under CPR r 25.13(2)(g) is not satisfied; the claimant's conduct and explanations, while questionable, do not amount to asset concealment or dissipation sufficient to justify security for costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed.