Leeds -v- Admatch [2014] JRC 189 (03 October 2014)

Once proceedings in the Royal Court have concluded in the plaintiff's favour and no costs are ordered against the plaintiff, the security for costs should be returned; retention is not justified by a planned appeal, as security for appeal is governed by the Court of Appeal Rules.

Citation: [2014] JRC 189
Parties: Second Plaintiff: Leeds; Defendant: Admatch; Director and Beneficial Owner of Admatch: Mr Weston
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 03 October 2014
Procedural Posture: Application for Return of Security for Costs / Post Judgment, Following Costs Application and Appeal Leave
Outcome: Application for return of security for costs granted.
Legal Topics: Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Appeals

Civil Procedure Security for Costs Costs Orders Appeals

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Leeds

Second Plaintiff

Admatch

Defendant

Mr Weston

Director and Beneficial Owner of Admatch

Procedural Posture

Application for Return of Security for Costs / Post Judgment, Following Costs Application and Appeal Leave

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sum provided by way of security for costs should be returned to Leeds after judgment in its favour
2 Whether the pending appeal justifies retention of the security
3 Whether disclosure of the source of funds for security is required

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for return of security for costs granted.

Orders

The sum of £30,000 is to be released to Leeds 14 days from the date of judgment.
Mr Weston is provisionally ordered to pay Leeds' costs for this application on the standard basis, subject to written submissions within 7 days.