header-logo header-logo

Security for costs

05 February 2009
Issue: 7355 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Janna Purdie takes a look at security for costs from a claimant’s perspective.

Security for costs 

The Commercial Court has recently provided guidance for practitioners seeking security for costs against a defendant.

Facts of the case

(Ref, Jones v Environcom [2008] All ER (D) 115 (Jan))

The claimant insurers provided cover for a Scottish recycling facility owned by the defendant. When that facility burnt down the claimants considered that they had a right to avoid the policy. The insurers issued proceedings in England for a declaration that they had validly avoided the insurance policies due to non disclosure or alternatively that they were entitled to damages. The defendants contended there was no requirement for disclosure and therefore the insurers were not entitled to avoid the policies. The defendant also counterclaimed that they were entitled to an indemnity for the losses suffered as a consequence of the insurers’ actions and a declaration they were entitled to be indemnified in respect of such losses or that

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll