Danemark Limited v BAA Plc: CA 16 Oct 1995

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.
[1995] EWCA Civ 6
Bailii
Companies Act 1985 726(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedKeary 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.140365