Leeds Utd v Admatch [2009] JCA 097 (19 May 2009)

Leeds Utd v Admatch [2009] JCA 097 (19 May 2009)

A blanket practice of ordering security for costs against non-resident plaintiffs is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR and not objectively justified where enforcement of a Jersey judgment in the UK is straightforward and inexpensive. The Deputy Bailiff's approach was disproportionate and the assessment of costs for a corporate litigant in person was incorrect under Rule 12/6.

Citation
[2009] JCA 097
Parties
First Plaintiff: Leeds United Association Football Club Limited; Second Plaintiff/appellant: Leeds United Football Club Ltd (formerly Leeds United 2007 Limited); Defendant/respondent: The Phone-In Trading Post Limited t/a Admatch
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Orders for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Litigants in Person, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Human Rights Security for Costs Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Litigants in Person Costs Assessment

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeds United Association Football Club Limited

First Plaintiff

Leeds United Football Club Ltd (formerly Leeds United 2007 Limited)

Second Plaintiff/appellant

The Phone-In Trading Post Limited t/a Admatch

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Orders for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the practice of ordering security for costs against non-resident plaintiffs is discriminatory under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Bailiff's approach to security for costs was proportionate and justified
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of costs for a corporate litigant in person was correct under Rule 12/6 of the Royal Court Rules

Ratio Decidendi

A blanket practice of ordering security for costs against non-resident plaintiffs is discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR and not objectively justified where enforcement of a Jersey judgment in the UK is straightforward and inexpensive. The Deputy Bailiff's approach was disproportionate and the assessment of costs for a corporate litigant in person was incorrect under Rule 12/6.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Security for costs order set aside
  • Security paid into court to be repaid to the Second Plaintiff