Natthachai v Burrage & Anor [2025] EWHC 568 (Ch) (17 March 2025)
Claimant's evidence was insufficiently full and frank to prove that security above £30,000 would stifle her claim; £30,000 is less than minimum security required; additional evidence on house value admitted; final amount to be determined at CCMC.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 568 (Ch)
- Parties
- Claimant: Kanokporn Nattachai; Defendant: Simon Burrage; Defendant: David Burrage
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 March 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Security for costs granted in principle; £30,000 to be paid as interim security; final amount to be determined at CCMC.
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Proprietary Estoppel, Costs Management
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kanokporn Nattachai
Claimant
Simon Burrage
Defendant
David Burrage
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether security for costs greater than £30,000 would stifle the claim
- 2 Determination of the appropriate amount of security for costs
Ratio Decidendi
Claimant's evidence was insufficiently full and frank to prove that security above £30,000 would stifle her claim; £30,000 is less than minimum security required; additional evidence on house value admitted; final amount to be determined at CCMC.
Court Disposition
Security for costs granted in principle; £30,000 to be paid as interim security; final amount to be determined at CCMC.
Orders
- Claimant to pay £30,000 security for costs within short period after judgment.
- Claimant's additional evidence on house value admitted.
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