This hearing was an appeal against an order of the lower court that the Claimant pay the sum of Â£5,000.00 into court by way of security for the Defendant’s costs, the lower court also ordered that the Claimant’s claim be struck out if payment of the sum is not effected within time.
The Claimant commenced proceedings seeking damages in relation to personal injuries sustained whilst employed by the Defendant. The Defendant sought an order for the Claimant to pay Â£20,000.00 into court pursuant to CPR 3.1(3) and CPR 3.1(5).
The grounds submitted were that there was no reasonable chance that the Claimant would succeed, that he had failed to meet obligations under various orders and that the Claimant is impecunious and therefore unable to meet an order for costs.
At issue was whether the Claimant’s conduct of the litigation justified an order for payment into court and whether the purpose of imposing a condition under CPR 3.1(3) was to control the future conduct of the proceedings.
It is incorrect to encourage litigants to view CPR 3.1(3) as a means of side stepping the requirements of CPR 25 which in effect would provide a less onerous task of obtaining an order for a sum to be paid into court: Olatawura -v- Abilove (2002) EWCA 1 WLR 275 considered.
Orders under CPR 3.1(3) or (5) which in substance amount to an order for security for costs should be underpinned by the underlining principles of CPR 25.12 and 25.13.
Â£5,000.00 was an appropriate amount to be paid into court in light of the context of the litigation.
If you’re interested in Commercial Litigation and would like to find out more, please call Michael Coyle on 0800 0862 0157Â orÂ email email@example.comÂ for a free no obligation chat.