Concept Elite Inc v (Thames Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 94 (Ch) (27 January 2012)

Concept Elite Inc v (Thames Enterprises Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 94 (Ch) (27 January 2012)

Security for costs is ordered because the petitioner is a foreign company, has failed to provide evidence of assets or means, and there is reason to believe it will be unable to pay the respondents' costs if ordered. There is no relevant delay or prejudice, and the merits do not reach the threshold to refuse security.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 94 (Ch)
Parties
Petitioner: Concept Elite Incorporated; Respondent: Thames Enterprises Limited; Respondent: Mahendra Vadilal Mehta; Respondent: Nisha Mahendra Mehta; Respondent: Menal Mahendra Mehta; Respondent: Crassula Limited; Respondent: Mahesh Maganlal Chandaria; Respondent: Bhavnish Chandaria; Respondent: Auger Investments PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 Section 994 / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Unfair Prejudice, Shareholder Disputes, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Judgments
Company Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Unfair Prejudice Shareholder Disputes Jurisdiction Enforcement of Judgments

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concept Elite Incorporated

Petitioner

Thames Enterprises Limited

Respondent

Mahendra Vadilal Mehta

Respondent

Nisha Mahendra Mehta

Respondent

Menal Mahendra Mehta

Respondent

Crassula Limited

Respondent

Mahesh Maganlal Chandaria

Respondent

Bhavnish Chandaria

Respondent

Auger Investments PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Prejudice Petition Under Companies Act 2006 Section 994 / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign petitioner in an unfair prejudice petition
  2. 2 Whether delay, merits, or available assets should prevent an order for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered because the petitioner is a foreign company, has failed to provide evidence of assets or means, and there is reason to believe it will be unable to pay the respondents' costs if ordered. There is no relevant delay or prejudice, and the merits do not reach the threshold to refuse security.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted

Orders

  • Petitioner to provide security for costs by payment into court or suitable bank guarantee unless otherwise agreed