Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors [2014] EWHC 294 (QB) (18 February 2014)

Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors [2014] EWHC 294 (QB) (18 February 2014)

The court found that the first claimant is resident in Germany and not solely outside the Brussels regime, so the condition for security under CPR 25.13(2)(a) is not met. However, for the second and third claimants, the available financial information is outdated or insufficient, and there is reason to believe they will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered. It is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs against the second and third claimants, given the size of the potential costs and the lack of up-to-date evidence of solvency.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 294
Parties
Claimant: Mustafa Ontulmus; Claimant: MTH Yatcilik; Claimant: Kaiserwerft GmbH; Defendant: Sir Ian Collett; Defendant: Ward & McKenzie (Yacht Consultants) Limited; Defendant: Peter Moore
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Libel, Jurisdiction, Corporate Solvency, Special Damages
Civil Procedure Defamation Security for Costs Libel Jurisdiction Corporate Solvency Special Damages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa Ontulmus

Claimant

MTH Yatcilik

Claimant

Kaiserwerft GmbH

Claimant

Sir Ian Collett

Defendant

Ward & McKenzie (Yacht Consultants) Limited

Defendant

Peter Moore

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimants under CPR 25.13
  2. 2 Whether the first claimant is resident in a Brussels Contracting State
  3. 3 Whether the second and third claimants are able to pay the defendant's costs if ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first claimant is resident in Germany and not solely outside the Brussels regime, so the condition for security under CPR 25.13(2)(a) is not met. However, for the second and third claimants, the available financial information is outdated or insufficient, and there is reason to believe they will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered. It is just in all the circumstances to order security for costs against the second and third claimants, given the size of the potential costs and the lack of up-to-date evidence of solvency.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

  • Security for costs ordered against the second and third claimants in stages, representing half of the defendant's costs up to disclosure and witness statements, with liberty to apply for further security for trial costs.
  • No order for security for costs against the first claimant.