header-logo header-logo

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

Security for costs

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll