Trident International Freight Services Ltd v Manchester Ship Canal Co: 1990

There was evidence that the plaintiff was no longer trading, and that it had previously received support from another company which was a creditor of the plaintiff company and therefore had an interest in the plaintiff’s claim continuing. The court considered an application for security for costs.
Held: Before the court refuses to order security on the ground that it would unfairly stifle a valid claim, the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is probable that the claim would be stifled if an order was made.
References: [1990] BCLC 263
This case is cited by:

  • 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 . .
    ([1995] 3 All ER 534)

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.225886