UK: Recent Developments - Security For Costs

Last Updated: 8 December 2016
Article by Anna Myrvang

Recent decisions on security for costs provide a useful reminder of how the court will apply the rules and exercise its discretion, together with insight into the scope of the court's powers to make ancillary or related orders.

An order for security for costs requires a person (usually a claimant, although sometimes a third party) to provide an acceptable form of security (whether by way of a payment of money into court, a guarantee or bond or similar) in respect of a party's litigation costs. The order is available in prescribed situations, subject to the discretion of the court.

This protection is afforded to those on the receiving end of a claim (including additional claims, for the purposes of Part 20 of the CPR) or an appeal, because defendants should not be exposed to the risk of there being no assets against which a costs award can be enforced where they have been forced into expending costs defending an unmeritorious claim or appeal, or to the risk of incurring additional costs necessitated by enforcement action in a jurisdiction where the process of enforcement may be more onerous than here.

The primary rules and conditions for such an order are in Part 25 of the CPR (CPR rules 25.12 – 25.15), although security can also be ordered by the court in the exercise of its general case management powers (including under CPR rules 3.1(3), 3.1(5) and 52.9(1)).

The discretion of the court in awarding an order of this nature is wide. The rules provide that the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, has to be satisfied that not only are the relevant conditions met, but also that it is just to make the order. The assessment will necessarily be fact dependent.

The following points arise from recent judgments which will be of interest to a party who is considering making or defending an application for security.

1. The standard of proof for the applicant is lower than the balance of probabilities

Master Matthews confirmed the relevant test in his judgment of 20 April 2016 in Coral Reef Limited v (1) Silverbond Enterprises Limited (2) Eiroholdings Invest [2016] EWHC 874 (Ch), "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 ... 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 [Jirehouse Capital v Beller [2009] 1 WLR 751]".

Lady Justice Gloster, in her judgment of 8 November 2016 in Bestfort Developments LLP and others v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Others [2016] EWCA Civ 1099, considered whether the provisions of and case law on the European Human Rights Convention might require a more stringent application of the test (i.e. the higher "likelihood" burden), in circumstances where the application is against a claimant resident outside either the United Kingdom or a Convention state. She concluded this was not the case. An order for security for costs is capable of amounting to discrimination on grounds of national origin unless the making of the order is objectively justified [Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [2001] EWCA Civ 556]. However, "the test of real risk of enforceability provides rational and objective justification for discrimination against non-Convention state residents". "Likelihood" was the wrong standard of proof, also in these circumstances.

2. The courts will not ignore the existence of an ATE policy – they will consider whether the policy will respond

Mr Justice Snowden, in his decision of 24 October 2016 in Premier Motorauctions Ltd and another v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and another [2016] EWHC 2610 (Ch), noted that the court will look at the assets available to meet an adverse costs order and there is no reason in principle why the existence of an ATE policy should not be taken into account in this regard. The relevant question "is whether, having regard to the terms of the ATE policy in question, the nature of the allegations in the case and all the other circumstances, there is reason to believe that the ATE policy will not respond so as to enable the defendant's costs to be paid."

3. In order to argue that providing security would effectively 'stifle' the claim, the claimant needs to provide evidence regarding its ability and efforts to obtain funding

Mr Justice Snowden, in Premier Motorauctions, noted the public interest in, and the role of, ATE insurance on appropriate terms in providing access to justice for insolvent companies under the control of responsible insolvency office-holders. He then went on to note that, had the jurisdictional threshold for CPR 25.13 been crossed in this case, "on the current (lack of) evidence as to the efforts made by the Joint Liquidators to seek alternative sources of funding for the case, I would have been unlikely to have refused an order for security for costs on the basis that to do so would have stifled the claim".

His Honour Judge Hacon, by his decision of 13 April 2016 in New Tasty Bakery Ltd v MA Enterprise (UK) Ltd [2016] EWHC 1038 (IPEC), also noted the obligation on a claimant to produce satisfactory evidence that it did not have funds and could not obtain them from another source, e.g. a third party who might reasonably be expected to provide them [Al-Koronky v Time Life Entertainment Group Limited [2005] EWHC 1688]. Without such evidence, no great weight could be given to the argument that the claim would be stifled by an order that the claimant provides security for costs.

4. '(In)equality' of the parties – and the case law on security for costs 'trumps' the generalised terms of the overriding objective

In a case in which applications had been made for security both in respect of a claim and counterclaim, Lord Justice Hamblen noted that where "a counterclaim does have independent vitality, the appropriate order will ordinarily be that both parties provide security, or that neither party does so" (judgment of 6 October 2016, Dawnus Sierra Leone Ltd v Timis Mining Corporation Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1066).

In the face of an argument that justice demands that both parties are put on equal footing in accordance with the overriding objective, he went on to note that the: "basic rule ... is that security is provided by the Claimant alone and, therefore, that the parties are not treated equally. That rule may, of course, be departed from and often will in cases involving a claim and counterclaim. Guidance on whether or not it will be appropriate to do so is to be found in the case law on security for costs rather than the generalised terms of CPR Rule 1.1.(2)(a)."

5. Protection may be more appropriate to cover the (additional) costs burden of any enforcement action

In a decision of 21 March 2016 in Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed Bin Shakhboot Al Nehayan v John Kent (aka Joannis Kent) [2016] EWHC 623 (QB), Mrs Justice Nicola Davies considered evidence regarding the enforcement of English money judgements in the UAE. She noted that, notwithstanding the difficulties that were identified, nowhere in the report did the expert state that the defendant could not successfully obtain enforcement. To "infer ... that it is likely that the defendant would be unable to enforce an order for costs against the claimant in the courts of the UAE would be to enter into the realm of speculation". She considered that the more appropriate order in the circumstances would be security with regards to the additional costs of enforcement action in the UAE.

6. Past conduct is relevant in the context of security on appeal, but the court can make an order even without relevant past conduct

In the Court of Appeal decision of 7 July 2016 in Merchant International Co Ltd v Natsionalna Aktsionerna Kopmaniia Naftogaz Ukrainy [2016] EWCA Civ 710, Lord Justice Christopher Clarke considered authorities regarding the ordering of a payment into court as a condition of pursuing an appeal. He noted that "Whilst every case depends on its particular facts the court is likely to find there to be a compelling reason to make a security payment order which has [the effect of securing enforcement] if the judgment debtor has in the past [Dumford Trading Ag v OAO Atlantrybflot [2004] EWCA Civ 1265] or is likely in the future [Wittman (UK) Ltd v Willdav Engineering SA [2007] EWCA Civ 521] to take steps to denude itself of assets or to put its assets beyond the reach of normal enforcement processes". However, he went on to note "There may be a compelling reason to make a security order even if it is not established that the appellant has acted [in this way]. This may be the case if there are considerable practical difficulties in effecting execution".

7. Third parties

A number of decisions this year have shed light on the position of third parties when it comes to security for costs applications.

In the 21 January 2016 Court of Appeal decision in Deutsche Bank A.G. v (1) Sebastian Holdings Inc. (2) Alexander Vik [2016] EWCA Civ 213, Lord Justice Moore-Bick agreed with the observation by Mr Justice Cooke at first instance, that a defendant's failure to apply for security does not preclude a successful application for an order for costs against a third party.

Master Kay QC, in his decision of 30 June 2016 in M.A. Lloyd & Son Ltd (In Administration) v PPC International Ltd (t/a Professional Powercraft) [2016] EWHC 1583 (QB), held that an application for wasted costs against a third party did not constitute a substantive claim against that third party that would allow the third party to seek security for their costs of defending the application.

In his decision of 7 October 2016 in Wall v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2016] EWHC 2460 (Comm), Mr Andrew Baker QC found that, in circumstances where a claimant is being funded by a third party (or there is good reason to believe that it is being funded), such that the court has the power to grant a remedy by way of security for costs against the funder, the court has the power first to make an order requiring the claimant to disclose the identity of the funder, and this power is ancillary to and necessary to make effective the primary power to order security.

Recent Developments - Security For Costs

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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