A request was made for security for costs in a large sum against a foreign resident party: ‘The more usual course might have been to order security, if security was to be ordered at all, in a relatively small sum in the first place, leaving the defendants to come back for further security as the matter progressed.’
Lord Donaldson said that since the purpose of an order for security against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, is to have a fund within the jurisdiction which will guarantee that any order for costs in favour of the defendant will be met, ‘it is a complete answer to an application for such an order that a fund already exists, at least if the Court can ensure that the fund will not be dissipated.
Staughton LJ said, in reliance upon Kevorkian v Burney (No 2) [1937] 4 All ER 468, that it is for the plaintiff to show that he has an asset within the jurisdiction which will remain here and then for the defendant to show, if he can, that the asset is worthless or not of sufficient worth to cover the costs.
Judges:
Dillon LJ, Donaldson LJ, Staughton LJ
Citations:
[1990] 1 WLR 552, [1990] 1 All ER 560
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kevorkian v Burney (No 2) CA 1937
When applying for security for costs against a foreign resident plaintiff, it is first for the defendants to show that the plaintiff is resident abroad within Ord. 23, r. 1; secondly, for the plaintiff to show that he has an asset here which will . .
Cited by:
Reconsidered – Fitzgerald and Others v Williams and Others O’Regan and Others v Same CA 3-Jan-1996
Security for costs should not to be granted against an EC National in the absence of some particular difficulty. The Treaty required citizens of other states which were signatories of the convention. The importance of accurate evidence is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Costs
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183176