A party had been ordered to pay into court as a condition of an application to set aside a judgment, a substantial sum in respect of past costs, and also as security for costs to be incurred. The defendant appealed.
Held: The judge had not differentiated between the two. On an application for security for costs, a court could look to the resources which might be available to the party. That might also be relevant when ordering payment of past costs, but the considerations differed. In this case there was no absence of good faith as in Oury. The order was also wrong in being, in reality, directed against a third party against whom no costs order could properly be made. The element relating to security for future costs stood.
Judges:
Peter Gibson, Mance, Hale, LJJ
Citations:
Times 28-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1688, [2003] 1 All ER 564
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(f) 3.1(3)(a) 3.1(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Olakunle O Olatawura v Alexander O Abiloye CA 17-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged an order requiring him to give security for costs before proceeding. The judge had felt he was unreasonable in the way he was pursuing his claim. He appealed saying the order was made outside the scope of Part 25.
Held: . .
Cited – Reed and others v Oury and others ChD 14-Mar-2002
The court should only exercise its power under the Civil Procedure Rules Part 3 to require a payment in only in limited circumstances, and not do so unless the party against whom the order was sought had acted in bad faith. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.188954