Ingenious Litigation, Re

Ingenious Litigation, Re

The court ordered that claimants' liability for adverse costs be several, not joint and several, and apportioned pro rata to the size of each claimant's investment. Security for costs was ordered against Therium (the litigation funder) in specified sums, limited to the funded claimants' share, and discounted for the value of ATE insurance policies (subject to conditions). The court found that ATE policies did not provide complete security due to risks of avoidance, termination, and competing claims. No cross-undertaking in damages was required from defendants. The detailed costs-sharing architecture was deferred pending further clarity on common costs and claim groupings.

Parties
Claimants: Mr Nigel Rowe & Others; Defendants: Ingenious Media Holdings PLC & Others; Defendant: SRLV (a firm); Defendant: UBS AG; Defendant: HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd; Defendants: Coutts & Co, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, National Westminster Bank plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Group Litigation/managed Multi Party Action / Interlocutory Applications for Costs Sharing Order and Security for Costs
Outcome
Applications granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Sharing Orders, Group Litigation, Several Liability, ATE Insurance, Litigation Funding
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Costs Sharing Orders Group Litigation Several Liability ATE Insurance Litigation Funding

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

Parties

Mr Nigel Rowe & Others

Claimants

Ingenious Media Holdings PLC & Others

Defendants

SRLV (a firm)

Defendant

UBS AG

Defendant

HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd

Defendant

Coutts & Co, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, National Westminster Bank plc

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Group Litigation/managed Multi Party Action / Interlocutory Applications for Costs Sharing Order and Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants' liability for adverse costs should be several or joint and several
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against litigation funder (Therium)
  3. 3 How adverse costs should be apportioned among claimants (pro rata or per capita)

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered that claimants' liability for adverse costs be several, not joint and several, and apportioned pro rata to the size of each claimant's investment. Security for costs was ordered against Therium (the litigation funder) in specified sums, limited to the funded claimants' share, and discounted for the value of ATE insurance policies (subject to conditions). The court found that ATE policies did not provide complete security due to risks of avoidance, termination, and competing claims. No cross-undertaking in damages was required from defendants. The detailed costs-sharing architecture was deferred pending further clarity on common costs and claim groupings.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part

Orders

  • Claimants' liability for adverse costs ordered to be several, not joint and several, and apportioned pro rata to investment.
  • Security for costs ordered against Therium in specified sums for funded claimants only, discounted for value of ATE insurance policies subject to conditions.