Carlton Advisors v Dorchester Holdings Ltd: ComC 29 Aug 2014

The court considered a request to order the defendants to pay a sum of money into court having defaulted in compliance with directions.
Held: The court does have the power under 3.1(5) to order a party to pay a sum of money into court if that party has, without good reason, failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or a relevant pre-action protocol. The defendants here had failed to comply with the overriding objective and other requirements.

Mackie QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 3341 (Comm)
Civil Procedure Rules 23.11
CitedHuscroft v P and O Ferries Ltd CA 21-Dec-2010
Second appeal against order requiring sum for security for costs to be paid into court and in default for the claim to be struck out.
Held: The Court considered its jurisdiction to make an order for security for costs under rule 3.1 and, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537734