Spy Academy Ltd. v Sakar International Inc

Spy Academy Ltd. v Sakar International Inc

Permission to appeal was granted because there was an arguable material error in excluding the appellant's evidence due to improper service, and the judge did not consider relevant submissions regarding security for costs.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Spy Academy Ltd; Respondent: Sakar International Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted (conditional)
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Service of Court Orders, Appeal Procedure, Impecunious Claimant
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Service of Court Orders Appeal Procedure Impecunious Claimant

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spy Academy Ltd

Appellant

Sakar International Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of the appellant's evidence due to improper service of a court order was a material error justifying permission to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the order for security for costs was appropriate given the circumstances of the appellant's impecuniosity and the nature of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted because there was an arguable material error in excluding the appellant's evidence due to improper service, and the judge did not consider relevant submissions regarding security for costs.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted (conditional)

Orders

  • Permission to appeal against HHJ Brown’s judgment is granted on condition that the outstanding costs order of £1,555 is paid within fourteen days.
  • Permission to appeal is also granted in respect of the refusal of the application under CPR part 18.