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 both Germany and Turkey, and thus is resident in a Brussels Contracting State; the address given was not false, and there was no evidence of intent to evade litigation consequences. However, for the second and third claimants, the available financial information was outdated or insufficient, and there was reason to believe they would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered. The merits of the claim did not make it unjust to order security for costs.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 294 (QB)
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 by Third Defendant
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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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 by Third Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first claimant is resident in a Brussels Contracting State for the purposes of CPR 25.13(2)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the second and third claimants are able to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so under CPR 25.13(2)(c)
  3. 3 Whether it is just to order security for costs in all the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first claimant is resident in both Germany and Turkey, and thus is resident in a Brussels Contracting State; the address given was not false, and there was no evidence of intent to evade litigation consequences. However, for the second and third claimants, the available financial information was outdated or insufficient, and there was reason to believe they would be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered. The merits of the claim did not make it unjust to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

  • Security for costs ordered against the second and third claimants in a form reasonably acceptable to the third defendant, to be given in stages.
  • No order for security for costs against the first claimant.