The defendant had obtained an order or additional security for costs against the defendant company (registered with andpound;100 share capital) under the section. It appealed. There was evidence to suggest some fraud by the plaintiff, but also that there was a genuine claim. The court had a difficult balance to draw between stifling a proper claim by a small company and putting the defendant at risk of incurring costs the plaintiff could not meet. The judge had erred, and the security order was vacated.
Citations:
[1995] EWCA Civ 6
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Costs, Litigation Practice
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.140365