Kinsteller LLC v Eagle Properties (No. 14) Limited - [2020] JRC 138 (09 July 2020)

Kinsteller LLC v Eagle Properties (No. 14) Limited - [2020] JRC 138 (09 July 2020)

The evidence did not establish substantial obstacles or real risk of non-enforcement of a Jersey costs order in Ukraine. Reciprocity is accepted, and no persuasive evidence was provided that Ukrainian courts would refuse enforcement. The respondent's counterclaim operates as a set-off and does not justify security for costs. The quantum sought was disproportionate and would stifle the claim. Security for costs is not ordered.

Citation
[2020] JRC 138
Parties
Representor: Kinstellar LLC; Respondent: Eagle Properties (No 14) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
09 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Reciprocity, Corporate Plaintiffs, Stifling of Claims
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Reciprocity Corporate Plaintiffs Stifling of Claims

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kinstellar LLC

Representor

Eagle Properties (No 14) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Post Judgment Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign corporate plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether enforcement of a Jersey costs order in Ukraine presents real obstacles
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's counterclaim operates as a set-off justifying security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish substantial obstacles or real risk of non-enforcement of a Jersey costs order in Ukraine. Reciprocity is accepted, and no persuasive evidence was provided that Ukrainian courts would refuse enforcement. The respondent's counterclaim operates as a set-off and does not justify security for costs. The quantum sought was disproportionate and would stifle the claim. Security for costs is not ordered.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Costs awarded to representor on the standard basis
  • Liquidator of respondent to inform court and representor whether challenges and third party proceedings will continue