Harrington & Charles Trading Co Ltd (in liquidation) v Mehta [2026]

James acted for the respondents to an application for security for costs.  Notwithstanding that the respondents engaged with the applicants to allay their concerns and the applicants decided not to proceed with the application.  Nonetheless, the applicants sought a costs order against the respondents on the basis, they said, that they would have been successful on their application.  The court declined to make such a costs order, finding that it would be a waste of the court’s resources and the parties’ time to determine the substantive application to determine the appropriate cost order.  The court ordered that there should be no order as to costs.