Porzelack 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 against a plaintiff German company was refused because these additional powers made it unnecessary.
The court should not go into the merits of the claim in detail unless it can clearly be demonstrated that there is a high degree of probability of success or failure.

Brown-Wilkinson VC
[1987] 1 WLR 420, [1987] 1 All ER 1074
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982$ 2(1)
England and Wales
ConsideredRaeburn v Andrews 1878
Security for costs . .

Cited by:
ReconsideredFitzgerald 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 . .
CitedKeary 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 . .
CitedGolden Grove Estates Ltd v Chancerygate Asset Management Ltd ChD 30-Apr-2007
Application for security for costs. . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Costs

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.182950