Holmes -v- Lingard HJL Holdings Ltd and Angel Fish Ltd [2015] JRC 172 (20 August 2015)

Holmes -v- Lingard HJL Holdings Ltd and Angel Fish Ltd [2015] JRC 172 (20 August 2015)

The application for security for costs was refused because, although the plaintiff's claims were weak and his conduct in litigation difficult, the threshold of special or unusual circumstances required to order security for costs against a resident individual was not met. Mere impecuniosity, incomplete financial disclosure, and being a difficult litigant were insufficient. There were alternative remedies available to the defendants, and the case did not cross the line to justify the rare exercise of the jurisdiction.

Citation
[2015] JRC 172
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Holmes; First Defendant: Mr Lingard; Second Defendant: HJL Holdings Limited; Third Defendant: Angel Fish Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Judgment on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Exceptional Circumstances, Impecuniosity, Access to Justice, Case Management
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Exceptional Circumstances Impecuniosity Access to Justice Case Management

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Holmes

Plaintiff

Mr Lingard

First Defendant

HJL Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Angel Fish Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Judgment on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special or unusual circumstances exist to justify an order for security for costs against a resident individual plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's financial disclosure is sufficient to avoid an order for security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's conduct in litigation justifies security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was refused because, although the plaintiff's claims were weak and his conduct in litigation difficult, the threshold of special or unusual circumstances required to order security for costs against a resident individual was not met. Mere impecuniosity, incomplete financial disclosure, and being a difficult litigant were insufficient. There were alternative remedies available to the defendants, and the case did not cross the line to justify the rare exercise of the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused