Moore v Moore

Lord Justice Thorpe:

On 18 December I heard an application by Mr Umezuruike for permission to appeal an order made by Bodey J in the Division. The short point that Mr Umezuruike wanted to argue was a point in principle of whether an order for maintenance pending suit that ran during a period when the petitioner asserted jurisdiction was enforceable when the court determined that it never had jurisdiction. I gave Mr Umezuruike some comfort in that I adjourned his application for hearing on notice with the appeal to follow if any permission granted. However, I was not particularly enthusiastic and I warned of the considerable risks that he would be running that substantial costs would be incurred and that if he failed he would face a bill not only for his own sum but for the costs of the other side, and I gave clear warning so that he could consider whether he wanted to put so much at risk. Perhaps in consequence, the wife’s solicitor, who had observed the hearing on 18 December, on the following day issued an application for security for costs and that is the application we determine this morning. It is supported by Mr Cellan-Jones for the wife and opposed by Mr Umezuruike for the husband. The skeleton argument of Mr Cellan-Jones is dated yesterday and Mr Umezuruike’s bears today’s date as does a statement from his client in Nigeria.

The case for the grant of security is very plain. The rules provide for it. CPR 25.13 says:

“(1) The court may make an order for security for costs under rule 25.12 if –

(a) it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to make such an order; and

(b)

(i) one or more of the conditions in paragraph (2) applies, or

(ii) an enactment permits the court to require security for costs.

(2) The conditions are –

(a) the claimant is –

(i) resident out of the jurisdiction”

So Mr Cellan-Jones clears that hurdle since the husband is resident in Nigeria.

As to the circumstances of the case, he relies on the fact that the husband has to date blithely ignored orders of this court for the payment of maintenance pending suit and for the payment of previous costs orders. In relation to the latter, the husband may draw some support from the fact that the previous costs orders have not, I think, as yet been assessed. But all in all it looks as if he now owes something in the order of £290,000 in this jurisdiction, and the wife’s only security is a property which she is trying to sell in order to dis