Claimant ordered to pay £460,000 as security for defendant’s costs, despite having assets frozen


Re: Stunt v Associated Newspapers [2019] EWHC 511 (QB)

In this case the defendant, Associated Newspapers, applied for the claimant, James Stunt, to provide security of his costs for a claim of £700,000.

The judge determined that the claimant had taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him. However, he found the terms of this security of costs order may be in conflict between the terms of a previous Restraint Order received by the Claimant six months earlier. The judge was persuaded the existence of the Restraint Order provided a reason in favour of exercising his discretion to grant an order for security in the present case.

Consequentially the security for costs order was allowed for £460,000, but the judge made clear it was wholly without prejudice to the Restraint Order.

Antony White QC was involved in this case.