Bates -v- Weston [2018] JRC 006 (10 January 2018)

Bates -v- Weston [2018] JRC 006 (10 January 2018)

Security for costs was appropriate because there was ample evidence that Mr Bates would make enforcement of any costs order difficult, including likely attempts to hide assets. The amount of security should be based on the reasonable costs of a litigant in person. Discovery of documents relating to indemnity or payment of costs by Leeds was not relevant, except for documents that might show Mr Bates had no legal liability to his solicitors, in which case limited discovery was justified.

Citation
[2018] JRC 006
Parties
Judgment Debtor / Applicant / Appellant: Mr Weston; Judgment Creditor / Respondent / Appellant: Mr Bates
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Master's Decisions on Security for Costs and Discovery in Proceedings to Set Aside Registration of Foreign Judgment
Outcome
Both appeals allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discovery, Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Security for Costs Discovery Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Weston

Judgment Debtor / Applicant / Appellant

Mr Bates

Judgment Creditor / Respondent / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Master's Decisions on Security for Costs and Discovery in Proceedings to Set Aside Registration of Foreign Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the judgment creditor in proceedings to set aside registration of a foreign judgment
  2. 2 Whether discovery of documents relating to indemnity or payment of legal costs by third parties is relevant to the application to set aside registration

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was appropriate because there was ample evidence that Mr Bates would make enforcement of any costs order difficult, including likely attempts to hide assets. The amount of security should be based on the reasonable costs of a litigant in person. Discovery of documents relating to indemnity or payment of costs by Leeds was not relevant, except for documents that might show Mr Bates had no legal liability to his solicitors, in which case limited discovery was justified.

Court Disposition

Both appeals allowed in part.

Orders

  • Security for costs in the sum of £3,750 to be provided by Mr Bates by 10 November 2017.
  • Master's order for discovery quashed as to categories (a)-(d); limited discovery ordered as to category (e) as varied.