Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Jonathan Nash QC, Peter de Verneuil Smith and Ian Higgins (instructed by Signature Litigation LLP) for the SG Group of Claimants David Railton QC, David Murray and Natasha Bennett (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the Defendants Hearing date: Thursday 23rd February 2017 Supplemental submissions in writing on Tuesday 28th February 2017 ____________________
i) The names and addresses of any third parties who, by virtue of having contributed or agreed to contribute to the Claimants' costs of these proceedings in return for a share of any recovery that the Claimants may make, fall within CPR 25.14(2)(b) .
ii) Either (i) a copy of any ATE insurance policy held by the Claimants (redacted to conceal privileged material, if any), or alternatively (ii) confirmation that neither the Claimants nor any persons falling within CPR 25.14(2)(b) will seek to rely upon such a policy in opposition to any application for security for costs.
(1) I would not consider an application against individual claimants to be viable or capable of fairly being accommodated.
(2) My present overall assessment is that an application against the funders for security for costs, even if limited to costs post-December 2016, would face difficult hurdles and time constraints; and more transparency and reassurance as to their standing, even if not complete, might well tip any balance firmly against any further order.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.