Natas Group Ltd. (In Administration) v Styles & Wood Ltd.

Natas Group Ltd. (In Administration) v Styles & Wood Ltd.

Given the Claimant's financial position and the risks and uncertainties associated with the ATE insurance, the threshold for security for costs is met. The evidence does not demonstrate that the claim would be stifled by a further security requirement. The Defendant is entitled to further security for costs, with the amount and payment schedule adjusted to avoid possible stifling.

Parties
Claimant: Natas Group Limited (in administration); Defendant: Styles & Wood Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)
Outcome
Defendant's application for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, ATE Insurance, Impecuniosity, Assignment of Debt, Counterclaim
Civil Procedure Construction Law Security for Costs ATE Insurance Impecuniosity Assignment of Debt Counterclaim

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Natas Group Limited (in administration)

Claimant

Styles & Wood Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further security for costs should be ordered against the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's claim would be stifled by an order for security
  3. 3 Effectiveness of ATE insurance as security

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Claimant's financial position and the risks and uncertainties associated with the ATE insurance, the threshold for security for costs is met. The evidence does not demonstrate that the claim would be stifled by a further security requirement. The Defendant is entitled to further security for costs, with the amount and payment schedule adjusted to avoid possible stifling.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay further £36,000 security for costs in three instalments (£12,000 each by 20 January, 10 February, and 2 March 2012) in addition to £144,000 already paid into court.
  • Claimant to pay 75% of Defendant’s costs of the security application, to be assessed on a standard basis.