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 particularly acute on an application without notice, and the duty of disclosure on such an application was stressed
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Times 03-Jan-1996, Ind Summary 12-Feb-1996, [1996] 2 WLR 447, [1996] QB 657
EC Treaty Arts 6, 220, Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1972 L299/32)
England and Wales
ReconsideredPorzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd 1987
When considering an application for security for costs against a litigant resident in the EU, the courts must allow for the new additional scope for enforcement of any judgment under the 1982 Act. In this case, an order for security for costs . .
ReconsideredDe Bry v Fitzgerald CA 1990
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 . .
ReconsideredBerkeley Administration Inc v McClelland CA 1990
There is no legally acceptable basis on which the benefit of an undertaking, to which a member of a group of companies is entitled, may be claimed on behalf of the group as a whole. The court discussed who had the benefit of cross undertakings given . .
AppliedMund and Fester v Hatrex Internationaal Transport ECJ 10-Feb-1994
(Judgment) A presumption against the successful enforcement of a judgment was not valid against an EU member. . .

Cited by:
CitedAbraham 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. . .
CitedGhafoor and others v Cliff and others ChD 11-Apr-2006
The applicant had obtained revocation of a grant of administration ad colligenda bona in the estate, and having succeeded, now sought costs. The question was whether there had been proper reasons for the application for the grant. The deceased’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.80580