Facts
In this case, it was about a lawsuit filed by A. Limited against B. Ltd. The lower court had ordered that the claimant party (A. Limited) must provide security for any potential party compensation, as it has no domicile in Switzerland.
A. Limited, domiciled in Ireland, appealed against this order. It argued that according to the purpose of Art. 99 CPC, which aims to prevent the endangerment of party compensation, there is no claim for security if there is no endangerment. Furthermore, it had claims against the defendant (B. Ltd.) from previous proceedings, which it could offset against any potential party cost claim.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that under Art. 99 para. 1 lit. a CPC, in the case of the claimant's lack of domicile or registered office in Switzerland, a significant endangerment of the recoverability of the party compensation for the defendant party is to be assumed irrefutably. This ground for security is therefore given in the present case, without further examination of the endangerment being necessary.
The Federal Supreme Court also found that there is no state treaty between the Republic of Ireland and Switzerland that would exempt the appellant from the obligation…