Case Alert - [2018] EWHC 313 (Ch)
Security for costs and counterclaiming defendant
The defendant sought security for costs against the claimants.
One of the issues in the case was that the defendant is
counterclaiming (this was not a case where it was just happenstance
who commenced litigation first – the claimants were the
"prime movers"). Prior caselaw has confirmed that it is
possible to make an order for security for costs against a
defendant who is counterclaiming if the counterclaim has "an
independent vitality of its own" and the defendant is doing
more than simply defending himself.
In Chuku v Chuku, the judge refused to make the
security for costs order, in part because if the order was made and
the claimant failed to provide security, the claim would be struck
out but the counterclaim would still fall to be fought out. The
same problem was raised here, but Master Bowles said that the
solution to this problem was that canvassed in Dumrul v
SCB: The
