header-logo header-logo

04 November 2010
Issue: 7440 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Dumrul v Standard Chartered Bank [2010] EWHC 2625 (Comm), [2010] All ER (D) 216 (Oct)

It was settled law that the court would generally not exercise its discretion under CPR 25 to make an order for security of the costs of a claim if the same issues arose on the claim and counterclaim and the costs incurred in defending that claim would also be incurred in prosecuting the counterclaim.
There were two exceptions: (i) where the claim raised substantial factual inquiries which were not the subject of the counterclaim, an order for security might be appropriate notwistanding the fact that the claim provided a defence to the counterclaim; in which case an order for security would normally be limited to the costs of addressing additional issues raised only by the claim; and (ii) where the claim and counterclaim raised additional issues, it might also be relevant to consider whether the quantum of the claim in respect of which security was sought was substantially greater than the applicant’s claim. 
 

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll