Security for costs had been properly been required from a defendant who wished to appeal against an order, where that defendant was funded by a party outside the jurisdiction. The right of a party to appeal given by the new Civil Procedure Rules only after leave and therefore only when some merit in the appeal could be seen was not enough to set aside such an order. The requirement did not stifle the exercise of the right of appeal.
The Hon Mrs Justice Arden DBE
Times 07-Dec-1999, Gazette 25-Nov-1999, [1999] EWHC Ch 201
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Federal Bank of the Middle East v Hadkinson and Others CA 16-Mar-2000
The Court had to decide whether an order in the standard form of freezing order was effective to cover assets which were held in the defendant’s name but which belonged beneficially to third parties.
Held: It did not. A Mareva injunction in . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Federal Bank of the Middle East v Hadkinson and Others CA 16-Mar-2000
The Court had to decide whether an order in the standard form of freezing order was effective to cover assets which were held in the defendant’s name but which belonged beneficially to third parties.
Held: It did not. A Mareva injunction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.162976
