Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors

Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors

The court found Mr Ontulmus is resident in Germany and Turkey, thus not satisfying the condition for security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(a) for him. However, based on financial evidence, the court found reason to believe MTH and Kaiserwerft would be unable to pay Mr Moore's costs if ordered, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(c). The strength of the claimants' case was not sufficient to make it unjust to order security for costs.

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, Residence, Corporate Financial Ability, Special Damages in Libel
Civil Procedure Defamation Security for Costs Residence Corporate Financial Ability Special Damages in Libel

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
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 the claimants should provide security for costs under CPR 25.13
  2. 2 Whether Mr Ontulmus is resident in a Brussels Contracting State
  3. 3 Whether MTH and Kaiserwerft can pay defendant's costs if ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Mr Ontulmus is resident in Germany and Turkey, thus not satisfying the condition for security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(a) for him. However, based on financial evidence, the court found reason to believe MTH and Kaiserwerft would be unable to pay Mr Moore's costs if ordered, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(c). The strength of the claimants' case was not sufficient to make it unjust to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

  • Security for costs to be provided by MTH and Kaiserwerft in stages, first stage representing half of Mr Moore's costs.
  • Mr Moore may apply for further security for trial costs at a later stage.