Wed06282017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

PROCEDURE: Feeling secure

07 June 2013  

John MacKenzie reviews recent case law on security for costs

In Geophysical Service Centre Company Ltd v Dowell Schlumberger (Middle East) Inc [2013], the defendant applied for security for costs. The defendant stated they had sufficient evidence that the claimant would not be able to pay an adverse costs order. The claimant insisted that it would be able to pay an adverse costs order as it had an After the Event insurance (ATE) policy. In response, the defendant argued that an ATE policy could not be considered effective security due to the inherent risk that an insurer may avoid or cancel the policy. The case therefore considers the extent to which a party can rely on an ATE policy as effective security.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Geophysical Service Centre Company Ltd v Dowell Schlumberger (Middle East) Inc [2013] EWHC147 (TCC)

    Monarch Energy Ltd v Powergen Retail Ltd [2006] CSOH 102