Starting Point Recruitment Limited v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 982 (Comm)
My Protection Guru Limited v Lifesearch Partners Limited
20 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2573 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies argued over money. One company (MPG) was short on cash and the other (LifeSearch) made them put money aside to cover court costs, even though MPG claimed the financial trouble was LifeSearch's fault. The judge also said MPG should have been more careful about protecting LifeSearch's private information earlier on in the dispute.
Key Facts
- •LifeSearch (Defendant) is an insurance broker, and MPG (Claimant) was its appointed representative under three agreements (2017, 2018, 2020).
- •MPG claims £2.3 million unpaid commission and damages for breach of contract.
- •LifeSearch counterclaims £4.5 million (related to alleged commission variations) and £347,978 for MPG's alleged repudiatory breach.
- •Disputes arose, leading to both parties alleging repudiatory breach and purported acceptance thereof.
- •LifeSearch applied for costs related to a CPR 5.4C order restricting public access to statements of case and for security for costs.
Legal Principles
CPR 5.4C governs public access to statements of case; open justice is the basic principle, but restrictions are allowed with good reason and minimal derogation.
CPR 5.4C, R (on the application of the Duke of Sussex) v the SSHD [2022] EWHC 682 (Admin)
CPR 16.4 requires full and proper particularisation of a claim.
CPR 16.4
In security for costs applications, the court considers the claimant's ability to pay if the claim fails; the merits are not usually considered unless highly probable success or failure is clear.
CPR 25.13, Sarpd Oil v Addax [2016] EWCA Civ 120, Premier Motorauctions Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 1872, Chernukhin v Danilina [2018] EWCA Civ 1802, Gama Aviation (UK) Ltd v Talaveras Petroleum Trading DMCC [2019] EWCA Civ 119, Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Aydin [2017] UKSC 57
Outcomes
LifeSearch's application for costs related to the CPR 5.4C order was dismissed (except for pre-application costs).
The court interpreted the consent order as encompassing all costs related to the application, including LifeSearch's response and the compromise. Even if the interpretation was incorrect, the court would have exercised discretion to deny costs, as the outcome primarily benefited LifeSearch, and MPG acted reasonably in light of open justice principles and the nature of the dispute.
LifeSearch's application for security for costs was granted in part.
MPG failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the security order would stifle the claim, despite opportunities to do so. The court considered MPG's impecunious state and staged the payment of security.