Leeds United v Admatch [2009] JLR 186 (19 May 2009)

Leeds United v Admatch [2009] JLR 186 (19 May 2009)

The general practice of ordering security for costs only against non-resident plaintiffs is discriminatory and not proportionate; security should be assessed on an individual basis and only granted if there is a real need.

Citation
[2009] JLR 186
Parties
Plaintiff: Leeds United; Defendant: Admatch
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discrimination, Access to Courts
Civil Procedure Human Rights Security for Costs Discrimination Access to Courts

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeds United

Plaintiff

Admatch

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ordering security for costs only against non-resident plaintiffs constitutes discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether such practice impedes the right of access to courts under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether the practice is proportionate and pursues a legitimate aim

Ratio Decidendi

The general practice of ordering security for costs only against non-resident plaintiffs is discriminatory and not proportionate; security should be assessed on an individual basis and only granted if there is a real need.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • Security for costs not ordered against the plaintiff