EC03 Capital Ltd & Ors v Ludsin Overseas Ltd

In two related applications for security for costs, the court gave only a preliminary view. The amount sought appeared excessive, security was arguably appropriate, and the security should be divided equally between the two respondent groups. The parties then agreed that each respondent would provide £40,000 within 28 days, on the usual terms stated in the applications. The underlying arguments were not finally determined, and costs were reserved to the court hearing the substantive appeal.

Two related applications were made in pending appeals to the Court of Appeal from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, before Ms Vivien Rose. Ludsin Overseas Limited was the applicant in both applications. EC03 Capital Limited and Wharf Land Investments Limited were the respective respondents.

Lord Justice Aikens expressed the preliminary view that the security sought was excessive, that some security should arguably be provided, and that approximately £80,000 should be divided equally between the two respondent groups. The parties subsequently agreed terms broadly reflecting that indication. The central issue was the appropriate amount, allocation and timing of security for costs.

Lord Justice Aikens made clear that his views were preliminary and that he remained open to argument. He indicated that the amount of security sought was excessive and that the appropriate total appeared to be in the region of £80,000.

1. There was a reasonable argument that security should be provided, although contrary arguments existed.

2. The security should be divided between the two groups of respondents, with £40,000 attributable to each application.

3. The parties then agreed that, in each application, the respondent would provide £40,000 within 28 days. The security would be provided on the usual terms set out in the application notices, which were to be transposed into an order.

4. Costs of both applications were reserved to the court hearing the substantive appeal.

The applications were therefore resolved by agreement. The court did not finally determine the competing arguments concerning security for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Two related applications in pending appeals were resolved by agreement. Each respondent was to provide £40,000 within 28 days, with costs reserved.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: The appeals arose from proceedings before Ms Vivien Rose. The citation of the judgment under appeal was not stated.