Costs
Infinity Distribution Ltd (in administration) v The Khan Partnership LLP [2021] EWCA Civ 565, [2021] All ER (D) 64 (Apr)
Under CPR 25, the court was obliged to have regard to certain non-discretionary matters in making an order for security for costs. Accordingly, it could not be said that when considering the manner in which security was to be provided in the present case, the court should leave out of account the amount and potential recoverability of the after the event (ATE) premium as a matter of no relevance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant solicitor’s appeal against a decision that the claimant provide security for costs in the form of a deed of indemnity, which would add to its ATE premium. The task of the court under CPR 25 was to weigh up the respective pros and cons and strike a fair balance between the interests of the parties.
Extradition
Rybak v District Court in Lublin (Poland) [2021] EWHC 712 (Admin), [2021] All ER (D) 63 (Apr)
The
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=3d1684d4_1)
