Costs

Security for costs - petitioner resident in Switzerland - application by respondents for security for costs - appropriate considerations to take into accountBunzl v Martin Bunzl International Ltd and Others: ChD (Ian Hunter QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge): 28 June 2000

The parties were involved in a family dispute over the assets and shares in a family company.

The respondents applied to the court for an order under RSC, Ord.

23, r.1 for security for costs against the petitioner who was resident in Switzerland.

The order was granted by the registrar.

The petitioner appealed.

The claimant in person.

Andrew Thompson (instructed by Withers) for the second to fourth respondents.

Barbara Rich (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna) for the sixth to eighth respondents.Held, allowing the appeal, that the order was made prior to 2 May 2000 therefore RSC, Ord.

23, r.1 applied; that Switzerland was not a member state of the EU or the EEA and the reasoning concerning security for costs orders giving rise to covert discrimination on grounds of nationality in Fitzgerald v Williams [1996] Q.B.

657 was not strictly applicable; that since Switzerland, EU member states and EEA member states were all members of either the Brussels or Lugano Conventions, whose purpose was to provide for the automatic enforcement of judgments, the court should approach the matter in a manner similar to that in Fitzgerald; but that, since the rule against discrimination on grounds of nationality did not apply, the discretion was slightly wider so that the court should rarely, if ever, grant security except where there was cogent evidence of substantial difficulty in enforcing a judgment in another member state; and that, accordingly, the order for security for costs against the petitioner would be set aside.