The plaintiff, a bankrupt, pursued libel proceedings. He was being financed by his mother who had limited resources. She undertook to pay any order for costs, but the Master ordered a stay under the inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent abuse of process unless the plaintiff provided security. The plaintiff appealed and the mother withdrew her undertaking. The judge reversed the order, holding that, even if there were jurisdiction, he would have exercised it in the plaintiff’s favour. The Court disposed of the case shortly on the facts on the basis that the mother’s position was one long since recognised as a lawful justification to maintain, sharing as she did a common interest with the plaintiff on the grounds of kinship. Security for costs orders are strictly limited to circumstances within rules, and no order for security for costs was appropriate, despite support for the action by a relative.
Citations:
Independent 09-Nov-1995, Times 03-Nov-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 753
Statutes:
Rules of the Supreme Court Order 23
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McFarlane v E E Caledonia Ltd QBD 8-Dec-1994
The court can order a champertous non-party to pay a successful defendant’s costs of defending the claim.
A non-party unlawfully supporting an action was ordered to pay the costs of the defendant.
Held: It may not be necessary to every . .
Cited by:
Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Others ChD 12-May-1997
The court may issue a stay of proceedings pending disclosure of the source of funding of an action, without there needing to be any suggestion of champerty or other illegality. The first plaintiff was ordered to disclose to the 5th and 6th . .
Cited – Abraham and Another v Thompson and Another CA 24-Jul-1997
The plaintiffs appealed an order that they should disclose who if any had funded their case. The case concerned failed business ventures in Portugal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79438