Member Login

Court refuses to revisit decision as to whether security of costs should be conditional on return of deposit

By: Mark Tottenham BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court refuses to revisit a judgment previously delivered, in which an order for security for costs in a specific performance action was made conditional upon the defendants agreeing to abandon their counterclaim and to return the deposit, on the grounds that: (a) the issue of the return of the deposit had been flagged at hearing, albeit by the judge rather than the plaintiff; (b) there had been no change of circumstance that justified revisiting the decision; and (c) the court remained of the view that an order for security for costs should be conditional upon the return of the deposit.

Application to revisit an ex tempore judgment - s. 52 of the Companies Act, 2014 - security for costs - conditions imposed on provision of security - sale of public house and share transaction - whether defendant entitled to deny plaintiff's entitlement - specific performance - counterclaim not being pursued by defendant - refusal to return deposit - overlap between claim by plaintiff and counterclaim by defendant - whether order for security would leave defendants free to pursue counterclaim while preventing plaintiff from pursuing claim - security conditional upon deposit being returned to plaintiff by defendant - application to revisit a judgment - whether any change in circumstances.

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.