header-logo header-logo

14 February 2014
Issue: 7594 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Dass v Beggs [2014] EWHC 164 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 26 (Feb)

CPR 25.13(2)(g) provided that security might be ordered by the court if it was satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it was just to make such an order where “the claimant had taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him”. The appropriate analysis in cases concerning applications under CPR 25.13(2)(g) was, first, to ascertain whether the gateway condition had been satisfied and if so, but only then, to consider whether, in all the circumstances, it would be just to make an order. It was also legitimate for the court to abstain from adjudicating on the gateway under CPR 25.13(2)(g) if it had taken the view that, in any event, the evaluation of all the circumstances would lead it to refuse the order as a matter of discretion. It was settled law that it was sufficient to pass through the gateway under CPR 25.13(2)(g) that the defendant had identified

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll