United States: Security For Costs – Recent Developments

Last Updated: November 21 2017
Article by Tom Canning and Andy Levett

  The last 18 months has seen several important developments in the case law relating to applications for security for costs. This article seeks to summarise those developments and the circumstances in which an order for security for costs may be available. 


An order for security for costs typically protects a party defending a claim (or an appeal), the policy consideration being that a defendant should not be exposed to the risk that it will win at trial and be awarded its costs, but be unable to enforce a costs order against the claimant because, for example, of the claimant's impecuniosity.  An order for security for costs requires a claimant (although sometimes a third party) to provide an acceptable form of security (whether by way of a payment of money into court or bond or guarantee) to meet, if required, the defendant's litigation costs. 

An order for security for costs is typically available if one or more grounds exist which point to a risk that it will not be possible to enforce a costs order against the party bringing a claim. The primary grounds are contained in CPR 25.13(2): 

  1. The claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction and outside the states covered by the Recast Brussels Regulation, the Brussels Convention, the 2007 Lugano Convention, or the 2005 Hague Convention (CPR 25.13(2)(a)). 
  2. The claimant is a company or other body (whether incorporated inside or outside Great Britain), and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so (CPR 25.13(2)(c)). 
  3. The claimant has changed its address since the claim was commenced with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation (CPR 25.13(2)(d)). 
  4. The claimant has failed to provide its address in the claim form or has given an incorrect address (CPR 25.13(2)(e)). 
  5. The claimant is acting as a nominal claimant, other than as a representative claimant under CPR 19, and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so (CPR 25.13(2)(f)). 
  6. The claimant has taken steps in relation to its assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against it (for example, dissipation of assets or transfer of assets abroad) (CPR 25.13(2)(g)). 

However, establishing one of the grounds in CPR 25.13(2) is not enough by itself. The court must also be satisfied "having considered all the circumstances of the case that it is just to make such an order" (CPR 25.13(1)). 


Interpreting CPR 25.12(1) 

CPR 25.12(1) reads "a defendant to any claim may apply under this Section of this Part for security for his costs of the proceedings"

In SARPD Oil International Ltd v Addax Energy and another [2016] EWCA Civ 120, the claimant brought a claim against the defendant and the defendant looked to 'pass the claim on' by starting a Part 20 claim against a third party (the "Part 20 defendant"). The court held that the Part 20 defendant's costs could be treated as the defendant's costs for the purposes of CPR 25.12(1). 

The court noted that if the claimant were to lose against the defendant, the defendant would "very probably" be ordered to pay the Part 20 defendant's costs as it would have lost its claim against the Part 20 defendant. In all likelihood, the defendant would be able to recover those costs from the claimant, as well as its own costs of defending itself against the claimant and of bringing proceedings against the Part 20 defendant. All of those costs would then become the defendants own costs pursuant to CPR 25.12(1). 

But is a defendant able to seek security in relation to costs associated with proceedings that are ancillary to the claim brought by the claimant? The decision in MA Lloyd & Son Ltd (In Administration) v PPC International Ltd (t/a Professional Powercraft) [2016] EWHC 1583 (QB) suggests not. In this case, the court held that an application for wasted costs in relation to a claim that had been struck out did not constitute a substantive claim or proceedings, and thus the wasted costs respondent was unable to seek security for costs against the applicant. 

So what does constitute a "claim" or "proceedings" for the purposes of CPR 25.12(1)? This question was considered in Cherkasov and others v Nogotkov Kirill Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756, a case which concerned an application to set aside the recognition of a Russian insolvency process by the English Courts. In her judgment, Rose J referred to the views expressed in the leading case in this area (GFN SA and others v The Liquidators of Bancredit Cayman Ltd [2009] UKPC 39). In this case, Lord Scott looked at whether interim applications could be deemed proceedings for the purposes of an application for security for cost. He made the distinction between interim applications made for the purpose of regulating the conduct of the parent action, which are not deemed proceedings for the purposes of CPR 25.12(1), and interim applications which raise issues that affect the parties' rights and are independent of the issues in the parent action, which are deemed proceedings. Applying this approach, Rose J deemed that the application to set aside the recognition of the foreign insolvency process did amount to proceedings for the purposes of CPR 25.12(1). 

In a case related to the same insolvency process (In the Matter of Dalnyaya Step LLC sub nom Olegovich v Cherkasov [2017] EWHC 509 (Ch)), the court held that that an application for security for costs does not operate as a stay on other proceedings. If and when an order for security for costs is made the claim is stayed until the security is provided, but not before then. 


It is possible for a claimant to apply for security for the costs of defending the defendant's counterclaim. The same principles apply in these circumstances as with a standard Part 7 claim, although there are some additional and important considerations. 

If the counterclaim and the claim cover identical grounds (i.e. the counterclaim gives rise to the same issues as the claim) then it is likely that the court will consider it unjust to order the defendant to pay security for costs for the claimant to defend the counterclaim (Physiotherapy Network v Health & Case Management Ltd [2017] EWHC 1238 (QB)). 

However, in Dawnus Sierra Leone Ltd v Timis Mining Corporation Ltd and another [2016] EWHC B19 (TCC), the court held that, when a claim and a counterclaim are independent and both parties are seeking security for costs from the other, "the appropriate order will ordinarily be that both parties provide security, or that neither party does". 

Stifling a genuine claim 

It is long established that: 

  1. where a claimant's claim is genuine, a court will be reluctant to order a claimant to pay security for costs if doing so is likely to prevent the claim from proceeding;
  2. in deciding whether the claim would be stifled, the court will consider whether the claimant can access funds from others to pay the security for costs sum; and 
  3. the onus is on the claimant to show that the order would stifle the claim. 

The decision in New Tasty Bakery Ltd v MA Enterprise (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1038 (IPEC) makes it clear that, without evidence that the claimant does not have funds to provide the security sought, and could not obtain them from another source (e.g. a third party who might reasonably be expected to provide funding), the court will be reluctant to accept the argument that the claim would be stifled by a security for costs order. 

CPR 25.13(2) – standard of proof for bringing an application 

In Coral Reef Limited v (1) Silverbond Enterprises Limited (2) Eiroholdings Invest [2016] EWHC 874 (Ch), the court considered the standard of proof required for CPR 25.13(2)(c). Master Matthews wrote in his judgment "I have to consider, on the totality of the evidence before the court, whether I am satisfied that there is reason to believe that the Claimant, being a company, will be unable to pay the Defendants' costs if ordered to do so. I do not have to be satisfied that the Claimant will be unable to pay, only that there is reason to believe it. That is a lower standard than, say, the balance of probabilities"

What might give the court reason to believe a claimant will be unable to pay? In SARPD, the court held that, where a claimant is given every opportunity to show it would be able to pay the defendant's costs (if required to do so) and refuses, the court may conclude it would be unable to do so. Here, the claimant had no discernible assets, no published accounts and refused to reveal anything about its financial position. 

The court took the same view on the applicable standard of proof in relation to CPR 25.13(2)(a) in Bestfort Developments LLP and others v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 1099. The correct test is whether there is a real risk of difficulties in enforcing a costs order in the jurisdiction of the claimant and there is no need for the defendant to establish such difficulties on a balance of probabilities test. 

After The Event ("ATE") insurance 

ATE insurance policies normally cover the legal costs which a claimant is ordered to pay to a defendant should a claim be unsuccessful. The decision in Premier Motorauctions Ltd and another v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP & Anor [2016] EWHC 2610 (Ch) shows that the existence of an ATE policy can, in fact, defeat an application for security for costs. The courts will consider whether the policy is likely to pay out if an adverse costs order is made against the claimant, and if there is no reason to doubt that it will, or to question the creditworthiness of the ATE insurer, then the security for costs application will likely be refused. There were no such concerns in Premier Motorauctions and thus the application for security for costs was indeed refused. 

The court's assessment will, however, turn on the terms and context of the policy in question. For example, when deciding if a policy represents reasonably satisfactory security, the court will be interested to know whether there are grounds which justify the insurer avoiding the policy (see Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio [2017] EWHC 1236 (Comm)) and how the beneficiary/ies of the policy would be treated if the claimant entered insolvency (Newwatch Ltd and another v Bennett and others [2016] EWHC 3506 (Comm)). 

In Dunn Motor Traction v National Express [2017] EWHC 228 (Comm), the defendant applied for security for costs even though the claimant's sole shareholder had irrevocably indemnified the claimant for any cost liability to the defendant. The claimant argued that this shareholder indemnity was equivalent to an ATE policy and thus the decision in Premier Motorauctions should be followed. The High Court held that, whilst ATE insurance was "a reliable source of litigation funding", an indemnity from a claimant's shareholder was not. The existence of such an indemnity is only likely to defeat a security for costs application in exceptional circumstances.

To read the article in full click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions