Concept Elite Inc v (Thames Enterprises Ltd & Ors

Concept Elite Inc v (Thames Enterprises Ltd & Ors

Security for costs is ordered because the petitioner is a foreign company with no evidence of assets sufficient to satisfy a costs order, the company is insolvent, and there is reason to believe the petitioner will be unable to pay the applicants' costs if ordered. Delay is not material, and the merits do not reach the threshold to refuse security.

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 / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Unfair Prejudice, Shareholder Disputes
Company Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Unfair Prejudice Shareholder Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 9 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 / 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 the petitioner would be unable to pay the respondents' costs if ordered to do so
  3. 3 Whether delay or merits of the claim should affect the grant of security

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered because the petitioner is a foreign company with no evidence of assets sufficient to satisfy a costs order, the company is insolvent, and there is reason to believe the petitioner will be unable to pay the applicants' costs if ordered. Delay is not material, 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