Jirehouse Capital & Anor v Beller & Anor

Jirehouse Capital & Anor v Beller & Anor

There is at least a significant danger that the claimants will be unable to pay the defendants’ costs if ordered, satisfying CPR 25.13(2)(c) and justifying an order for security for costs. The application for fortification of the cross undertaking is disproportionate and no significant loss is likely to be established, so no order for fortification is made.

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; fortification of cross undertaking refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Fortification of Cross Undertaking, Freezing Orders, Company's Ability to Pay Costs
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Security for Costs Fortification of Cross Undertaking Freezing Orders Company's Ability to Pay Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
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 under CPR 25.13(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether fortification of the cross undertaking 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 CPR 25.13(2)(c) and justifying an order for security for costs. The application for fortification of the cross undertaking is disproportionate and no significant loss is likely to be established, so no order for fortification is made.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; fortification of cross undertaking refused.

Orders

  • Security for costs to first defendant in sum of £150,000.
  • Security for costs to second defendant in sum of £250,000 payable in instalments (£140,000 in 21 days, £112,000 by 5 weeks before trial).