Tennyson v Devlin & Ors [2013] NIQB 9 (21 January 2013)

Tennyson v Devlin & Ors [2013] NIQB 9 (21 January 2013)

The court found that the second plaintiff company would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful, and despite the presence and undertaking of the individual plaintiff, there was insufficient evidence of his financial capacity. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs against the company, considering all relevant factors including delay and financial backers.

Citation
[2013] NIQB 9
Parties
First Plaintiff: Conor Tennyson; Second Plaintiff: Inmark (NI) Ltd; First Defendant: Joseph Laurence Devlin; Second and Third Defendants: Alan Rooney and John Rooney t/a Rooney's Scrap Yard; Fourth Defendant: Rooney Metals Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against the second plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Corporate Plaintiffs, Discretion of Court, Delay in Application
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Corporate Plaintiffs Discretion of Court Delay in Application

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conor Tennyson

First Plaintiff

Inmark (NI) Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Joseph Laurence Devlin

First Defendant

Alan Rooney and John Rooney t/a Rooney's Scrap Yard

Second and Third Defendants

Rooney Metals Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the corporate plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the presence of an individual plaintiff affects the order for security for costs
  3. 3 Quantum of security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second plaintiff company would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful, and despite the presence and undertaking of the individual plaintiff, there was insufficient evidence of his financial capacity. The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs against the company, considering all relevant factors including delay and financial backers.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against the second plaintiff.

Orders

  • Second plaintiff to provide security for costs in the sum of £7,500 by 11 February 2013.
  • Defendants awarded costs of the application.