Les Pas Holdings v Receiver General [2002] JRC 131 (15 July 2002)

Les Pas Holdings v Receiver General [2002] JRC 131 (15 July 2002)

Given the Defendants' inconsistent positions on security for costs, the lateness of the application, the absence of a material change in the Plaintiff's financial circumstances, and the disruption caused, it is not just to order security for costs at this stage. The Plaintiff is resident within the jurisdiction and there is no evidence that an order is necessary to prevent injustice.

Citation
[2002] JRC 131
Parties
Plaintiff: Les Pas Holdings Limited; First Defendant: H. M.'s Receiver General; Second Defendant: The Greffier of the States of Jersey
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Company Law, Foreshore Ownership, Jurisdictional Practice
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Company Law Foreshore Ownership Jurisdictional Practice

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Les Pas Holdings Limited

Plaintiff

H. M.'s Receiver General

First Defendant

The Greffier of the States of Jersey

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a plaintiff resident within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the timing and prior assurances affect the discretion to order security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Defendants' inconsistent positions on security for costs, the lateness of the application, the absence of a material change in the Plaintiff's financial circumstances, and the disruption caused, it is not just to order security for costs at this stage. The Plaintiff is resident within the jurisdiction and there is no evidence that an order is necessary to prevent injustice.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security for costs.