UPC CFI LD Paris, 21 May 2024: Security for costs in spite of (undisclosed) insurance

26-05-2024 Print this page
IPPT20240521, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ARM v ICPillar

Security for costs of € 400.000 ordered because of potential inability for Claimant to cover the legal costs in case of losing (Article 69(4) UPCA, Rule 158(1) RoP)


Factors to be considered when ordering a security order include the financial position of the other party that may give rise to a legitimate and real concern that a possible cost order might not be recoverable and/or the likelihood that a possible cost order by the UPC may not, or in an unduly burdensome way, be enforceable. 


In the present case, there are no exceptional circumstances that would be considered as unduly burdensome to justify the order. Nor does the mere fact that the Respondent is domiciled in the United States of America justify an order for security for costs. 


Potential risk of inability to cover the legal costs of the other party in case of losing the litigation. Respondent in its written comments did not provide any indication of its financial situation. Insurance taken out to cover the financial risks is insufficient for two reasons. Firstly, the purpose of this type of insurance is to provide a financial protection for ICPILLAR (the insured party), and not to protect the potential rights of the ARM entities (the applicants of the Security for cost request). Secondly, the full terms of the said insurance have not been disclosed and it is hence unclear what are the actual terms of the insurance.


IPPT20240521, UPC CFI, LD Paris, ARM v ICPillar