Leeds Utd. v. Admatch [2014] 2 JLR_Note 28 (03 October 2014)

Leeds Utd. v. Admatch [2014] 2 JLR_Note 28 (03 October 2014)

Security for costs is granted where the applicant demonstrates a real risk of non-payment by the respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Leeds United; Respondent: Admatch
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Costs, Security for Costs

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeds United

Applicant

Admatch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is granted where the applicant demonstrates a real risk of non-payment by the respondent.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Respondent to provide security for costs as ordered by the court