Hard Rock Limited and Anor v HRCKY Limited [2020] JRC 080 (05 May 2020)

Hard Rock Limited and Anor v HRCKY Limited [2020] JRC 080 (05 May 2020)

The plaintiffs' application for security for costs was only partially granted because the court was not satisfied, on the evidence, that ordering security would probably stifle the defendant's claim. The court balanced the risk to the plaintiffs of not recovering costs against the risk to the defendant of being unable to pursue a genuine claim, and found the plaintiffs' application to be at least partly tactical and late. The court ordered a limited amount of security and allowed the defendant access to costs orders to fund legal representation, refusing to stay payment of costs orders.

Citation
[2020] JRC 080
Parties
Plaintiffs: Hard Rock Limited and Anor; Defendant: HRCKY Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
05 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs partially granted; application to stay payment of costs orders refused; costs awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Interlocutory Applications, Balance of Justice, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Costs Orders Interlocutory Applications Balance of Justice Access to Justice

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hard Rock Limited and Anor

Plaintiffs

HRCKY Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the defendant in respect of its counterclaims
  2. 2 Whether payment of costs orders in favour of the defendant should be stayed pending trial
  3. 3 Whether the order for security would stifle the defendant's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' application for security for costs was only partially granted because the court was not satisfied, on the evidence, that ordering security would probably stifle the defendant's claim. The court balanced the risk to the plaintiffs of not recovering costs against the risk to the defendant of being unable to pursue a genuine claim, and found the plaintiffs' application to be at least partly tactical and late. The court ordered a limited amount of security and allowed the defendant access to costs orders to fund legal representation, refusing to stay payment of costs orders.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs partially granted; application to stay payment of costs orders refused; costs awarded to defendant.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay £25,000 into court as security for costs.
  • Balance of interim payment on account to be paid to defendant's advocate's client account.