Ontulmus & Ors v Collett & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case is a libel action in which Mustafa Ontulmus and two companies, MTH Yatcilik and Kaiserwerft, claimed damages after being accused of fraud and criminal activities by Mr. Moore through emails. Moore applied for security for costs, citing the plaintiffs' residency status and financial instability. The court ruled that Ontulmus still resides in Germany and thus Moore’s application regarding his residency was denied. However, the court found that the two corporate entities lacked financial stability to cover potential costs and ordered them to provide security for costs.
Judgment
Mr Justice Warby:
Introduction
This is a libel action brought by three claimants against three defendants in respect of emails sent in January and July 2012. The action was listed for a 1 day case management conference on 15 October 2014 to deal with an application for permission to amend the third defendant’s Defence, and costs budgeting. However, on 9 October 2014 the claimants each accepted offers of settlement which had been made by the third defendant on 13 November 2013. At the same time the claimants gave notice of discontinuance of their claims against the first and second defendants.
That leaves for determination the appropriate final orders in respect of damages and costs to give effect to the settlements and the discontinuance. The defendants have made applications for what they say are appropriate orders. The main issues arise from the application of the third defendant. They are whether such costs orders as are made against the claimants should be on the standard or the indemnity basis; whether the claimants should be jointly and severally liable for costs ordered in favour of the third defendant; and whether and if so to what extent costs and damages due to the claimants should be set off against costs due to the third defendant.
Background
The account of the factual background which is set out below is derived from the materials put before the court on behalf of the third defendant. It does not include any findings of fact as to the matters alleged by him.
The claimants described themselves in this way in the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim. The first claimant (“Mr Ontulmus”) is a shareholder in the second claimant (“MTH”) and a consultant to MTH and to the third claimant (“Kaiserwerft”). MTH is a Turkish company carrying on business as a yacht builder, seller and charterer. Kaiserwerft is a German company engaged in the same business. The claimants are said to have international reputations.
The third defendant (“Mr Moore”) is a former client of MTH who ordered a number of successively larger yachts from MTH. He and his wife became engaged in a dispute with the claimants. The first defendant is the managing director of the second defendant. The first and second defendants were instructed to advise Mr & Mrs Moore in relation to the dispute with the claimants.
The main claim in the libel action related to an email and attachments sent by Mr Moore to a watchmaker and businessman named Franck Muller and a business associate of