Dawnus Sierra Leone Ltd v Timis Mining Corporation Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC B19 (TCC) (06 July 2016)

Dawnus Sierra Leone Ltd v Timis Mining Corporation Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC B19 (TCC) (06 July 2016)

The defendant's counterclaim did not have sufficient independent vitality in this jurisdiction to justify an order for security for costs against the defendant; the claimant, having elected to commence proceedings in this jurisdiction, should provide security for costs to the defendant. There was no evidential basis...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC B19 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Dawnus Sierra Leone Ltd; Defendant: Timis Mining Corporation Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Disclosure
Outcome
Claimant's application for disclosure and security for costs dismissed; defendant's application for security for costs granted in part.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Third Party Funding, Counterclaims, Jurisdiction, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Third Party Funding Counterclaims Jurisdiction Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Dawnus Sierra Leone Ltd

Claimant

Timis Mining Corporation Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs and Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be ordered to disclose the identity of its third party funder under CPR r. 25.14
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the claimant and/or the defendant under CPR r. 25.13
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim is sufficiently independent to justify an order for security for costs against the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's counterclaim did not have sufficient independent vitality in this jurisdiction to justify an order for security for costs against the defendant; the claimant, having elected to commence proceedings in this jurisdiction, should provide security for costs to the defendant. There was no evidential basis for ordering disclosure of the defendant's third party funder.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for disclosure and security for costs dismissed; defendant's application for security for costs granted in part.

Orders

  • Claimant to provide security for defendant's costs up to pre-trial review in the sum of £700,000 (subject to submissions on amount)
  • Claimant to pay its own costs of its unsuccessful application