Fernhill v Kier
Citation: LTL Jan 27 CA and C.P Rep 69
Nature of case:
The claimant appealed against the decision of the TCC directing it to provide a substantial sum by way of security for the defendant’s costs of the action. The Court of Appeal found that an order for security for costs was not the inevitable result of a conclusionthat there was reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay the defendants’ costs if successful in its defence. If the claim had any merits, then it became arguable that the claimant’s financial difficulties were a direct result of the defendant’s wrongfully termination of the contract. Allowing the appeal, the court held that an order directing the claimant to pay the defendant’ scrutiny for costs in addition to its own costs would result in injustice to the claimant.
