Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

PRACTICE: A balancing act

27 January 2012  

Michael Morton reviews recent arguments on security for costs

Even with a strong body of rules, regulations, guidance and case law, judicial decisions in respect of applications for security for costs remain subjective and are fraught with difficulties for judges and an arena of heated argument among litigators. A client may grumble about paying his solicitor for work actually done. It is a wake up call to a cash-strapped client being forced, by the court, to pay moneys or provide a substantial bond for security for his opponents costs, including those yet to be incurred. It is difficult to think of a more effective way to force the claimant to put their money where their mouth is. They will then have to consider whether the litigation is worth the risk? How much do they want to throw at the claim?

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Ltd & anor [2011] EWHC 770 (Ch)

    Aquilla Design (GRB Products) Ltd v Cornhill Insurance plc [1988] BCLC 134 (CA)

    Corfu Navigation Co v Mobil Shipping Ltd [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52 (CA)

    Data Delecta Aktiebolag v MSL Dynamics Ltd [1996] ECR 1-4661

    Re Gibson’s Settlement Trusts [1981] Ch 179

    Innovare Displays plc v Corporate Booking Services Ltd [1991] BCC 174

    Keary Developments Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd [1995] 3 ALL ER 534 (CA) (Civ Div)

    Re Little Olympian Each Ways Ltd [1994] 4 ALL ER 561

    Lobster Group Ltd v Heidelberg Graphic Equipment Ltd & anor [2008] EWHC 413 (TCC)

    Mastermailer Stationery Ltd v Sandison & ors (2011) LTL 20/4/11

    Olatawura v Abiloye [2002] EWCA Civ 998

    Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd [1987] 1 ALL ER 1074

    Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [2001] EWCA Civ 556

    Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd [1973] 2 ALL ER 273 (CA)