Natasha Dzameh recently acted in several security for costs applications across the fields of wills & trusts, real estate and commercial (professional negligence).
These cases concerned:
- A six-figure claim for breach of covenant, nuisance, negligence and breach of statutory duty regarding property damage and a counterclaim concerning breaches of a lease in the High Court, Business List (ChD) in Bristol, starting in Manchester. Natasha represented the lessors seeking security for costs from a limited company which had been the commercial lessee.
- A claim against a partnership for an unpaid invoice coupled with a six-figure counterclaim alleging professional negligence in respect of the preparation of accounts. Natasha represented the Claimant limited company defending against the application in Cardiff.
- A will validity challenge in respect of two wills on the basis of lack of capacity, want of knowledge and approval, undue influence and lack of due execution in the High Court, Property, Trusts and Probate List (ChD) in Leeds. The grant of probate indicated the net estate was worth £4.6m. The Second Defendant brought a counterclaim seeking pronouncement in solemn form of law for the latest will or the earlier will with the Third Defendant counterclaiming for a pronouncement in respect of the latest will only. Natasha represented the Second Defendant in seeking security for costs. He was a beneficiary and executor under the latest will. The Third Defendant also made an application for such security.
The application in the real estate matter focused on the interplay between claims and counterclaims and the appropriateness of security for costs orders in such circumstances. It also involved consideration of whether security could be accepted from a third party on an application made under CPR 25.13 rather than CPR 25.14 as well as the appropriateness of cryptocurrency and charges against property as security. Security of approximately 72% of the figure sought was ordered. The Court also ordered that Natasha’s clients receive approximately 86.5% of the costs of the application.
In the professional negligence dispute the Defendant had also applied to amend its counterclaim (filed in a separate document rather than by way of a Defence and Counterclaim) and to file an amended budget. There were arguments as to the form of the proposed pleadings and issues of limitation. The security for costs application focused on stifling litigation, the Article 6 ECHR right and the appropriateness of a security for costs order in circumstances where a counterclaim existed. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs of the applications including the costs of and arising from the ordered Amended Defence and Counterclaim, the sum to be assessed.
The application in the contentious probate dispute was made in circumstances where a Claimant, resident outside of the jurisdiction, had transferred approximately 76 acres of land out of his name. The estate was a complex one due to the form of the assets, their location in multiple jurisdictions, a potential issue with a charitable gift and liabilities such that in 2020 the Court appointed an administrator, the estate being potentially insolvent. Following submissions on the application for security for costs, the Claimant decided he no longer wished to proceed with the litigation and sought to discontinue proceedings.
A second hearing was held to address the issues of discontinuance, appropriate costs orders and consequential orders as not all parties were in attendance at the first hearing. An application pursuant to section 50 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 was also made orally. It was determined that the costs incurred by Natasha’s client should be paid by the Claimant and assessed on the indemnity basis both in respect of the application for security for costs and the other costs incurred in respect of the proceedings (not including the s.50). The costs of the security for costs application were assessed at 100%, an order was made for payment of a notable sum on account in respect of the costs of the dispute. The usual order was made in respect of the s.50 costs i.e. payment from the estate on the indemnity basis.
Natasha is a commercial and chancery barrister and mediator who particularly enjoys tactical applications and is frequently instructed on complicated, high value matters. Details of her wills & trusts, real estate, commercial and professional negligence practice can be found on the respective links.
Natasha is described in Chambers UK as follows: “Natasha’s technical expertise is phenomenal”, “A really tenacious and sharp barrister”, “really clear in terms of her advocacy, good on her feet and can be really forceful when needed”, “very thorough and quick on her feet in court. Her submissions are excellent, and she is able to respond to comments by the judge and opponents in excellent time”.
If you would like to instruct Natasha, please contact her clerks on: c[email protected] or 0117 923 4740.