Home Farm Development and Ors -v- Le Sueur [2015] JCA 180 (01 September 2015)

Home Farm Development and Ors -v- Le Sueur [2015] JCA 180 (01 September 2015)

The court held that, applying the principles in Shelton v Barby, impecuniosity alone does not justify ordering security for costs; the merits of the appeal were not strong but not hopeless, and the balancing exercise favored not making an order for security for costs at this time, given the risk of stifling the appeal where there had not been a full hearing on the merits.

Citation
[2015] JCA 180
Parties
Appellant: Home Farm Developments Ltd; Appellant: Strata Developments Ltd; Appellant: Mr Shane Holmes; Respondent: Mr Jamie Le Sueur
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Appeal / Interlocutory Application Before Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Strike Out Applications, Access to Justice, Impecuniosity, Summary Disposal
Civil Procedure Appeals Security for Costs Strike Out Applications Access to Justice Impecuniosity Summary Disposal

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Home Farm Developments Ltd

Appellant

Strata Developments Ltd

Appellant

Mr Shane Holmes

Appellant

Mr Jamie Le Sueur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Appeal / Interlocutory Application Before Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against appellants in an appeal where previous courts found the claim vexatious and an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether impecuniosity alone constitutes special circumstances justifying security for costs
  3. 3 Whether ordering security would stifle the appeal and breach Article 6 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, applying the principles in Shelton v Barby, impecuniosity alone does not justify ordering security for costs; the merits of the appeal were not strong but not hopeless, and the balancing exercise favored not making an order for security for costs at this time, given the risk of stifling the appeal where there had not been a full hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs is made.
  • Costs of the respondent's application for security for appeal to be costs and the cause.