England and Wales Case Law

Russian Operator Policy Claims, Re

The Deep Sky Claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence that security for costs would stifle their claims, particularly given evidence that parent and group companies have funded litigation costs to date. The court is entitled to expect claimants to seek funding from within their corporate structure. The amounts sought for security are proportionate and justified. Security for costs is therefore ordered in the amounts sought by the War Risk Defendants.

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Corporate structure and funding
• Stifling of claims
• Costs management

Read case analysis

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.

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Impecuniosity
• Stifling of claims
• Discretion under cpr 25.13

Read case analysis

MOUNTAIN ASH PORTFOLIO LIMITED v BORIS TSIBENOVICH VASILYEV

The High Court ordered the claimant corporate trustee to provide £1.1 million security for the defendant’s costs in a commercial claim over a shareholder’s guarantee.

• Security for costs
• Trustee claims
• Stifling of claims
• Merits assessment
• Quantum of security
• Security-for-costs

Read case analysis

Greenov8 Global Platforms Ltd v Green

Greenov8 Global Platforms Ltd v Green [2022] EWHC 1669 (Ch) (09 June 2022)

The High Court ordered Greenov8 Global Platforms Ltd to provide security for costs after finding the claimant was an impecunious foreign company and had not proved stifling.

• Security for costs
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Jurisdiction
• Impecuniosity
• Stifling of claims
• Security-for-costs

Read case analysis

GREENOV8 GLOBAL PLATFORMS LIMITED v JONATHAN GREEN

The High Court ordered Greenov8 to provide security for costs, finding the Nigerian claimant was out of the jurisdiction, impecunious, and had not shown the order would stifle the claim.

• Security for costs
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Jurisdiction
• Impecunious claimant
• Stifling of claims
• Security-for-costs

Read case analysis

Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd & Ors

Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 1432 (Ch) (24 May 2018)

The High Court refused security for costs against an insolvent company in liquidation, finding an order would likely stifle a bona fide claim pursued for creditors.

• Security for costs
• Liquidation
• Stifling of claims
• Discretionary orders
• Funding of litigation
• Security-for-costs

Read case analysis

Maritime Investment Holdings Inc v Underwriting Members of Syndicate 1183 At Lloyd's & Ors

The Commercial Court refused to vary a security-for-costs order against a struck-off BVI company, but gave a final chance to pay security before dismissal.

• Security for costs
• Company struck off register
• Authority to act for company
• Disclosure obligations
• Stifling of claims
• Security-for-costs

Read case analysis

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

Natas Group Ltd. (In Administration) v Styles & Wood Ltd. [2011] EWHC 3464 (TCC) (22 December 2011)

The High Court ordered further security for costs in a construction dispute, finding the claim would not be stifled and that ATE insurance gave only limited protection.

• Security for costs
• Ate insurance
• Assignment of claims
• Stifling of claims
• Counterclaim
• Impecuniosity

Read case analysis

Kuenyehia & Ors v International Hospitals Group Ltd

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and ordered further security for costs, holding the claimants had not shown security would stifle the claim.

• Security for costs
• Impecuniosity
• Discretion to order security
• Stifling of claims
• Security-for-costs
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Brimko Holdings Ltd v Eastman Kodak Company

The High Court limited security for costs to the security already offered plus £15,000, holding that a larger order would stifle Brimko's genuine claim.

• Security for costs
• Stifling of claims
• Corporate claimants
• Third party funding
• Discretionary orders
• Security-for-costs

Read case analysis