Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Security for costs refused as plaintiff’s sole asset lost through defendant’s resale of property
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused an application by the defendant for security for costs in a dispute arising after a company failed to register its purchase of a valuable property, allowing the vendor to remain the legal owner and sell the property again decades later. The plaintiff, a special purpose company, claimed to be unaware that the property had been resold until years after the fact and alleged breach of trust after the defendant sold the property a second time and retained the proceeds. The court held that, while the defendant had shown a prima facie defence on the issue of statutory limitation, the plaintiff established on a prima facie basis that its inability to pay costs stemmed solely from the defendant's actionable wrongdoing. As such, the balance of justice lay against ordering security for costs, and the relief sought by the defendant was refused.
security for costs – breach of trust – failure to register title – plaintiff"s inability to pay – sale of property twice – bare trust – constructive trust – Statute of Limitations 1957 – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – special purpose vehicle – Connaughton Road principles – impecuniosity due to alleged wrongdoing – civil liability – limitation period – land registration
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
