Brennan v Equiom Crewing - Burkut IC - 14 Aug-2023 [2023] JRC 146 (14 August 2023)

Brennan v Equiom Crewing - Burkut IC - 14 Aug-2023 [2023] JRC 146 (14 August 2023)

Given the absence of any allegation or evidence of fundamental dishonesty or grounds for striking out, and the operation of QOCS under Part 12A, there is no realistic possibility of the Defendant obtaining an enforceable costs order against the Plaintiff beyond damages and interest. Therefore, there is no interest to protect by ordering security for costs.

Citation
[2023] JRC 146
Parties
Plaintiff: [Plaintiff name not provided]; Defendant: [Defendant name not provided]
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Application for Security for Costs at First Directions Hearing
Outcome
Defendant's application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Non Resident Plaintiffs, Royal Court Rules
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Security for Costs Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Non Resident Plaintiffs Royal Court Rules

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[Plaintiff name not provided]

Plaintiff

[Defendant name not provided]

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Application for Security for Costs at First Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a non-resident plaintiff in a personal injury claim subject to qualified one-way costs shifting

Ratio Decidendi

Given the absence of any allegation or evidence of fundamental dishonesty or grounds for striking out, and the operation of QOCS under Part 12A, there is no realistic possibility of the Defendant obtaining an enforceable costs order against the Plaintiff beyond damages and interest. Therefore, there is no interest to protect by ordering security for costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for security for costs refused