Cheffick Ltd v JDM Associates ; D Y Davies Muir Ltd ; BCW Consulting Engineers ; Henry Riley and Son ; and Wiltshier Tonbridge Ltd
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; (1988) CILL 446-447(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 29 July 1988 Appeal from a decision of Judge Fox-Andrews, dismissing an application for security for costs . Action arose out of refurbishment of Queen`s Hotel , Brighton . Applications which gave rise to the appeal were made under Companies Act 1985 s726(1) which stated that the Court had the jurisdiction to stay all proceedings until security is given if "it appears by credible testimony that there is a reason to believe that the company is unable to pay the defendant`s costs if successful in his defence". CA accepted the judge`s finding that the net assets of Cheffick were £1.2m and the costs which would be incurred by the defendants were £800,000. On this basis CA had no jurisdiction to make an order for security as Cheffick`s net assets substantially exceeded the estimated amount of the costs. Appeals were dismissed. CA also considered claims by defendants that the assessment of costs were wrong.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40093 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 21422-1001 |
CA 29 July 1988 Appeal from a decision of Judge Fox-Andrews, dismissing an application for security for costs . Action arose out of refurbishment of Queen`s Hotel , Brighton . Applications which gave rise to the appeal were made under Companies Act 1985 s726(1) which stated that the Court had the jurisdiction to stay all proceedings until security is given if "it appears by credible testimony that there is a reason to believe that the company is unable to pay the defendant`s costs if successful in his defence". CA accepted the judge`s finding that the net assets of Cheffick were £1.2m and the costs which would be incurred by the defendants were £800,000. On this basis CA had no jurisdiction to make an order for security as Cheffick`s net assets substantially exceeded the estimated amount of the costs. Appeals were dismissed. CA also considered claims by defendants that the assessment of costs were wrong.