Earlier this year, Rosenblatt acted for the successful Defendant in Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Ltd [2023] EWHC 2467 (KB) (13 October 2023), in which the court granted ITI Capital Ltd’s (“ITI”) application for strike out of a number of claimants’ claims, following failure of those claimants (the “Corporate Claimants”) to adhere to the terms of the order for security (from May 2022) made by Master Stevens (the “Security Order”).
The application for strike out arose from Rosenblatt’s earlier success for ITI in Giaquinto & Ors v ITI Capital Ltd [2022] EWHC 973 (QB) (10 May 2022), in which Master Stevens gave judgment in favour of ITI following its application for security for costs against the Corporate Claimants. The terms of the Security Order required the Corporate Claimants to either give security for the ITI’s costs (until the experts stage) into Court, or arrange alternative security, by way of an after the event insurance policy, to include among other things, a suitable deed of indemnity from the insurer to ITI.
The Corporate Claimants, by way of application issued on 13 June 2022, sought to (i) vary the terms of the Security Order to remove reference to a deed of indemnity (on the basis of the slip rule); and (ii) get a declaration from the Court that the terms of an after the event insurance policy it had been offered were sufficient alternative security. The Corporate Claimants’ application was made despite the strict terms of the Security Order that required compliance by 13 June 2022, or strike out of the claims. Given the failure to adhere to the Security Order, ITI cross-applied for judgment, given that the Corporate Claimants’ claims fell to be struck out, seeing that they had failed to provide security or alternative security in the form ordered.
Following hearings in March and June 2023, the Court rejected the Corporate Claimants’ application and granted ITI’s application for strike out and judgment. The Court concluded that (a) it would be an inappropriate use of the slip rule to amend the terms of the Security Order; (b) variation of the Security Order should not be permitted, given that there had been no mistake made or material change of circumstances of the type recognised by the courts when exercising its discretion; (c) the alternative security proposed by the Corporate Claimants was inconsistent with the requirements of Master Stevens’s May 2022 judgment; and (d) it would be contrary to the overriding objective to permit an extension of time for compliance with the Security Order.
The case provides a cautionary tale to litigants of the importance to ensure proper compliance with the requirements of security orders, as made by the Court, as well as the need to seek full advice on the terms of after the event insurance policies, which are to provide alternative means of security.
The Rosenblatt team which successfully secured strike out of the claims against ITI, included Luther Kisanga (Legal Director), George Kestel (Solicitor), and Simon Walton (Partner).
How we can help
Rosenblatt has a well-equipped and robust team, which is focused on dispute resolution, investigations and a range of other services. For enquiries, please contact Luther Kisanga (Luther.Kisanga@rosenblatt.co.uk).
