Starting Point Recruitment Limited v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Starting Point Recruitment Limited v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Although there is reason to believe the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs, the claimant has shown on the balance of probabilities that it cannot raise funds from other sources and that an order for security would stifle the claim. The claimant’s financial position is at least in part due to the defendant’s alleged conduct. In all the circumstances, it would not be just to order security for costs.

Parties
Claimant: Starting Point Recruitment Limited; Defendant: Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Stifling of Claims, Discretion Under CPR 25.13
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Impecuniosity Stifling of Claims Discretion Under CPR 25.13

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starting Point Recruitment Limited

Claimant

Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Application / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so
  2. 2 Whether an order for security for costs would stifle the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claimant’s impecuniosity was caused by the defendant’s alleged breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Although there is reason to believe the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs, the claimant has shown on the balance of probabilities that it cannot raise funds from other sources and that an order for security would stifle the claim. The claimant’s financial position is at least in part due to the defendant’s alleged conduct. In all the circumstances, it would not be just to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is refused.
  • Costs of the application to be paid by the defendant, subject to further submissions if any.