Claimant’s appeal against order for security for costs. An order had been returned having been sent to the correct address, but to the wrong person, it was returned. On the claimant appearing by its director the judge made the order.
Held: The judge had not given proper weight to the claimant’s reasons for the return of the order, and appeared to have prejudged the claim. The appeal succeeded. On balancing the factors outlined in Keary, the claimant’s case should not be stifled.
Judges:
Sedley LJ, Sir Simon Tuckey
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 985
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.375601
