Jirehouse Capital & Anor v Beller & Anor [2008] EWHC 725 (Ch) (16 January 2008)

Jirehouse Capital & Anor v Beller & Anor [2008] EWHC 725 (Ch) (16 January 2008)

There is at least a significant danger that the claimants will be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered, satisfying the condition for security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(c). The undertakings by Mr Jones are insufficient to remove this risk. Discretionary factors do not preclude an order for security. No sufficient basis for fortification of the cross-undertaking is established given the reduced and speculative nature of the alleged loss.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 725 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Jirehouse Capital; Claimant: Jirehouse Capital Trustees Ltd; Defendant: Stanley Sherwin Beller; Defendant: Mrs Beller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs and Fortification of Cross Undertaking
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; application for fortification refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Fortification of Cross Undertaking, Freezing Orders, Costs Liability of Companies, Discretionary Relief
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Security for Costs Fortification of Cross Undertaking Freezing Orders Costs Liability of Companies Discretionary Relief

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jirehouse Capital

Claimant

Jirehouse Capital Trustees Ltd

Claimant

Stanley Sherwin Beller

Defendant

Mrs Beller

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs and Fortification of Cross Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against claimants, including an unlimited company, under CPR 25.13(2)(c) and Section 726 of the Companies Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered to do so
  3. 3 Whether fortification of the cross-undertaking in damages should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

There is at least a significant danger that the claimants will be unable to pay the defendants' costs if ordered, satisfying the condition for security for costs under CPR 25.13(2)(c). The undertakings by Mr Jones are insufficient to remove this risk. Discretionary factors do not preclude an order for security. No sufficient basis for fortification of the cross-undertaking is established given the reduced and speculative nature of the alleged loss.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; application for fortification refused.

Orders

  • Claimants to provide security for first defendant's costs incurred to date in the sum of £150,000.
  • Claimants to provide security for second defendant's costs in the sum of £250,000, payable in two instalments (£140,000 in 21 days, £112,000 by 5 weeks before trial).