The defendant sought security for costs. The court considered the burden of proof in such a claim: ‘. . the court should not restrict its evaluation of the ability of a claimant to provide security to the means of the claimant itself. If the claimant cannot provide the security from its own resources, the court will be likely to consider whether it can reasonably be expected to provide it from third parties such as, in the case of a corporate claimant, shareholders or associated companies or, in the case of an individual claimant, friends and relatives. If the case moves to the stage of considering whether the security should be regarded as being available from third parties, the burden still rests on the claimant. He or it has to show that, realistically, there do not exist third parties who can reasonably be expected to put up security for the defendant’s costs’ and ‘the court should not press too far the proposition that the burden [of showing that an order in more than a certain sum will stifle the claim] rests on the claimant. It should be recalled that when the claimant has to establish that third parties do not exist from whom security can reasonably [be] expected and obtained, that is to place on the claimant the burden of proving a negative.’
Judges:
Park J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 1343 (Ch)
Cited by:
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another QBD 29-Jul-2005
The defendant to the defamation claim sought security for costs. There had been allegations of dishonesty on either side.
Held: The court should not, upon such an application, enter into the merits of the case in any detail, save in the . .
Cited – Al-Koronky and Another v Time-Life Entertainment Group Ltd and Another CA 28-Jul-2006
The claimants sought damages after publication of articles alleging severe mistreatment of a servant. One defendant had settled and apologised, but the defendant publisher and author had persisted with the allegation. The claimants who lived in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.229848