Phillips v Symes (Security for Costs)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE BUXTON |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 486 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 18 April 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 486
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE A3/01/2551/B
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Hart)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Buxton
MR. J. STEPHENS (instructed by Messrs Lane and Partners, London, WC1) appeared on behalf of the Claimants.
This is an application for security for costs against an appeal pending in this court which is due to be heard on, I am told, 29th and 30th April. The appeal is being brought by two interveners, Robin James Symes ("Mr Symes") and Robin Symes Limited ("RSL"), who intervene in an action between the administrators of the estate of Mr. Michailidis and Messrs Eversheds, a well known firm of solicitors. The administrators seek to obtain from Messrs Eversheds various documents which they say they require in order to administer Mr. Michailidis's estate. Mr. Symes, and in some way not at the moment clear to me RSL, have in the past been closely associated with Mr. Michailidis. They have intervened in this action to express a fear that documents that may appear to fall under the ownership or control of the administrators may in fact be confidential documents held by Eversheds as the solicitors of Mr. Symes and RSL.
Hart J, who has had the burden of dealing with the whole of this tangled story, made an order that was intended to provide a process whereby Messrs Eversheds could properly and fairly assess whether any particular document before them was or was not the property of the interveners.
The interveners have objected to the terms of his order and have appealed to this court. The judge gave permission for that appeal but on a subsequent occasion expressed substantial doubts as to whether he had been justified in granting permission. I will say nothing about the prospects of that appeal succeeding, save that the considerable study that I have made of the substantive case does not indicate that the appeal is one that is self-evidently going to succeed.
The application for security comes about because the applicants fear that RSL, a limited company, does not have sufficient assets to pay their costs, and they complain that Mr. Symes is ordinarily resident out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BTU Power v Hayat
...Civ 1940, distinguished. (4) Mbasogo v. Logo Ltd., [2006] EWCA Civ 608, dicta of Auld, L.J. considered. (5) Phillips v. Eversheds, [2002] EWCA Civ 486, distinguished. (6) Wisniewski v. Central Manchester Health Auth., [1998] P.I.Q.R. P324; [1998] Lloyd”s Rep. Med. 223, dicta of Brooke, L.J.......
-
Mbasogo and another v Logo Ltd and Others
...judgment in Marine Blast Limited v Targe Towing Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 1940, and of Buxton LJ, at paragraph 6 in Phillips v Eversheds [2002] EWCA Civ 486, are relevant to the approach of the court in considering whether there is reason to believe that the party against whom security is sou......
-
Sarpd Oil International Ltd v Addax Energy SA and Another
...some support from the cases relied on by Auld LJ of Marine Blast Ltd v Targe Towing Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1940 and Phillips v Eversheds [2002] EWCA Civ 486. The respondents in those cases were English companies so information either should have been available or was available but was unsatisf......
-
IBB Internet Services Ltd and Others v Motorola Ltd
...[2013] IEHC 48, (Unrep, McGovern J, 7/2/2013); Jirehouse Capital v Beller [2008] EWCA Civ 908, [2009] 1 WLR 751; Phillips v Eversheds [2002] EWCA Civ 486, (Unrep, COA, 18/4/2002); Philip v Ryan [2004] 4 IR 241; Boliden Tara Mines v Cosgrove [2010] IESC 62, (Unrep, SC, 21/12/2010) and In re......