IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 7th March 2001 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
WHITE SEA & ONEGA SHIPPING COMPANY (a body corporate) | ||
- v - | ||
INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDERATION |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 180 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Tel: 0171 421 4040
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR RICHARD LORD (Instructed by Taylor Joynson Garrett of London) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
" ..... at any one time, taking the number of visits over the last 3 years, it is likely that between about 6 and 9 of White Sea's vessels are physically present in a port of a country which is a signatory to the Brussels or Lugano Conventions. Moreover, the whereabouts of vessels can easily be established if necessary by means of a tracking service, such as SeaData, provided by Lloyd's Maritime Information Services."
"(1) The court may make an order for security for costs under rule 25.12 if -
(a) it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to make such an order; and(b) (i) one or more of the conditions in paragraph (2) applies, or(ii) an enactment permits the court to require security for costs."
"(2) The conditions are -
.....
(b) the claimant is a company or other incorporated body -(i) which is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction; and(ii) is not a body against whom a claim can be enforced under the Brussels Conventions or the Lugano Convention."
"Security cannot now be ordered as a matter of course from a foreign claimant; to avoid the making of such an order he does not have the burden of establishing the ownership of fixed and permanent property here or indeed any property at all; the simple and single criterion for ordering security is what is just in the circumstances of the particular case. The authorities relied on by the Defendants are not longer of any relevance or assistance: they are a distraction and should no longer be cited. The common sense principle applies that the existence of assets within the jurisdiction, their fixity and permanence, are among a number of potentially relevant factors, their importance depending on the particular facts of the case."