Holdings Limited v Oakvest Limited & Ors

The applicant was successful in obtaining security and is entitled to recover its costs up to 15 February; thereafter, costs should be costs in the case due to the nature of the Deed of Indemnity and the conduct of both parties.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Chiswick International Holdings Limited; Defendant/applicant: Oakvest Limited & Ors
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 25 February 2022
Procedural Posture: Commercial Court Application / Costs Determination Following Security for Costs Application
Outcome: Costs awarded to the applicant up to 15 February; costs thereafter are costs in the case.
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Insurance as Security

Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Costs Orders Insurance as Security

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 Party arguments 2

Parties

Chiswick International Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

Oakvest Limited & Ors

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Costs Determination Following Security for Costs Application

Legal Issues

1 Who should bear the costs of the security for costs application?
2 Was the Deed of Indemnity offered by the claimant sufficient security?
3 Did the conduct of the parties affect the costs outcome?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicant up to 15 February; costs thereafter are costs in the case.

Orders

Applicant to recover costs of the application up to 15 February.
Costs of the application after 15 February to be costs in the case.