Apex Global Management Ltd & Anor v FI Call Ltd & Ors

Apex Global Management Ltd & Anor v FI Call Ltd & Ors

Security for costs was refused because the existence of cross-petitions and overlapping issues would result in one-sided litigation and the costs sought were equally referable to both parties' claims; it would be unjust to order security in these circumstances.

Parties
Claimant/petitioner: Apex Global Management Limited; Claimant/petitioner: Faisal Abdel Hafiz Almhairat; Defendant/respondent: Fi Call Limited; Defendant/respondent: Global Torch Limited; Defendant/respondent: HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Defendant/respondent: Emad Mahmoud Ahmed Abu-Ayshih; Defendant/respondent: HRH Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Company Law Petition and Cross Petition / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Both applications for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Cross Claims, Unfair Prejudice, Companies Act 2006 Section 994
Company Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Cross Claims Unfair Prejudice Companies Act 2006 Section 994

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apex Global Management Limited

Claimant/petitioner

Faisal Abdel Hafiz Almhairat

Claimant/petitioner

Fi Call Limited

Defendant/respondent

Global Torch Limited

Defendant/respondent

HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Defendant/respondent

Emad Mahmoud Ahmed Abu-Ayshih

Defendant/respondent

HRH Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Law Petition and Cross Petition / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the Apex Parties
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against Global Parties
  3. 3 Effect of cross-claims on security for costs applications

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was refused because the existence of cross-petitions and overlapping issues would result in one-sided litigation and the costs sought were equally referable to both parties' claims; it would be unjust to order security in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Both applications for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • No order for security for costs against any party.
  • Both applications for security for costs are dismissed.