Legal proceedings can be a significant financial undertaking, and the prospect of incurring substantial, irrecoverable costs is a genuine concern for both practitioners and their clients. One crucial mechanism within the UK legal system designed to address this risk is the application for security for costs. This is a strategic tool that can significantly impact the trajectory of a case. In today’s litigious environment, where cross-border disputes and concerns about a claimant’s financial stability are increasingly common, a solid grasp of security for costs is more vital than ever.
The Legal Principles of Security for Costs
At its heart, security for costs is a court order that compels a claimant (or, in some cases, another party) to provide a financial guarantee to cover the defendant’s potential legal costs should the claimant’s case fail. This guarantee can take various forms, most commonly a payment of money into court, a bank bond, or a guarantee from a financially sound third party. The primary aim is to protect a defendant who is compelled to defend a claim from the risk of being unable to recover their costs from an unsuccessful claimant, particularly if there are doubts about the claimant’s financial standing or if they are based outside the UK jurisdiction.
The power to order security for costs is enshrined in Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). While the CPR lays out specific conditions that must be met for an application to be considered, it’s crucial to remember that the court retains a significant degree of discretion in deciding whether to make such an order. The Commercial Court Guide also provides specific guidance for cases within that specialist court, emphasising the need for prompt applications, ideally no later than the first Case Management Conference (CMC), and suggesting a typical security amount of 60-70% of the applicant’s costs.
CPR 25.13(2) outlines several key conditions under which a defendant can apply for security for costs against a claimant. These include situations where:
-
-
- The claimant is resident outside of the UK. Post-Brexit, this ground has gained even more prominence as enforcement against UK-based individuals in some jurisdictions may now be considered more complex.
- The claimant is a company or other body with reason to believe it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so. The applicant must demonstrate a “real risk” of this inability.
- The claimant has changed their address since the claim began to evade the consequences of the litigation. Evidence of the claimant’s specific intention to evade cost orders is required.
- The claimant failed to provide an address or gave an incorrect address on the claim form. This must be a material failure, not a minor oversight.
- The claimant is acting as a nominal claimant (not a representative claimant under Part 19) and is believed to be unable to pay the defendant’s costs. This often involves scrutiny of the financial backing of the true beneficiary of the claim.
- The claimant has taken steps regarding their assets that would make it difficult to enforce a costs order against them. Proof of specific intent to evade is not necessary; the difficulty of enforcement is sufficient.
-
It’s important to note that these grounds are not exhaustive, and other statutory provisions may allow for security for costs in specific circumstances.
Real-World Application: Consider the case of Bend Weld Engineering SDN, BHD v FMC Technologies Limited. Here, a Malaysian company (BWE) brought a claim against FMC. FMC successfully applied for security for costs based on BWE being resident outside the jurisdiction and presenting financial accounts indicating potential inability to pay costs. The court, while acknowledging BWE’s overseas residency, focused on the evidence of its financial difficulties, ultimately ordering security for costs up to the Case Management Conference. This case highlights how the courts balance the protection of defendants with ensuring access to justice for claimants, even those with financial challenges or based abroad.
Practical Guidance for Practitioners
Navigating security for costs applications requires a strategic and pragmatic approach. Here’s some hands-on guidance for practitioners:
For Applicants (Typically Defendants):
-
-
- Act Promptly: Apply for security as soon as you become aware of grounds for doing so. Delay can negatively impact your application. In the Commercial Court, aim for the first CMC.
- Gather Robust Evidence: Your application must be supported by a detailed witness statement or affidavit outlining the specific grounds, the costs incurred, and an estimate of future costs. Include supporting documentation like financial accounts where relevant.
- Specify the Amount Clearly: State the exact amount of security sought and how it has been calculated, ideally referencing an approved or agreed costs budget. Be prepared for the court to potentially order a percentage (e.g., 60-70% in the Commercial Court) rather than the full amount.
- Consider the Form of Security: While payment into court is common, explore other options like bank or parent company guarantees. Be aware that unconventional forms like cryptocurrency may be rejected.
- Don’t Overreach: Avoid using security for costs as a purely tactical or harassing measure. The court will consider the “justness” of the application.
-
For Respondents (Typically Claimants):
-
-
- Challenge the Grounds: Scrutinise the applicant’s evidence and argue if the conditions of CPR 25.13(2) are not met.
- Dispute the Quantum: If the amount sought seems excessive, provide evidence and arguments for a lower figure.
- Highlight Stifling: If an order for security would genuinely prevent you from pursuing a meritorious claim due to lack of funds, present clear evidence of your financial position and inability to raise the security. Show you’ve explored all avenues for funding.
- Raise Conduct Issues: If your financial difficulties are a direct result of the defendant’s actions, argue that it would be unjust to order security.
- Disclose ATE Insurance: If you have After the Event (ATE) insurance, present the policy details as it may be considered sufficient security. Be prepared for the defendant to challenge its terms.
-
Common Mistakes and Solutions:
-
-
- Mistake: Delaying the application for security. Solution: Act promptly as soon as grounds are known.
- Mistake: Providing insufficient or weak evidence. Solution: Thoroughly investigate and document the grounds for the application with supporting evidence.
- Mistake: Seeking an excessive amount of security without proper justification. Solution: Base the amount on a realistic costs budget and be prepared for potential discounts by the court.
- Mistake: Claimants failing to demonstrate the stifling effect of security. Solution: Provide detailed financial information and evidence of inability to raise funds from any source.
-
Conclusion: Securing Fairness in Litigation
Security for costs is a vital mechanism in the UK legal system, aiming to ensure fairness by protecting defendants from the risk of irrecoverable costs. While primarily a shield for defendants, understanding its principles and practical application is essential for all practitioners. The courts carefully balance the need to protect defendants with the fundamental right of claimants to access justice, making the exercise of their discretion a nuanced process.
Looking ahead, the ongoing reforms to the CPR, particularly Part 25, may bring further changes to the rules surrounding interim remedies and security for costs . Additionally, the increasing prevalence of litigation funding will likely continue to shape how security for costs applications are approached, especially in cases involving third-party funders.
Ultimately, whether you are applying for or defending against a security for costs order, a thorough understanding of the legal principles, a meticulous approach to evidence, and a clear strategic objective are paramount. By focusing on the practical implications and potential impact on your client’s case, you can effectively navigate this complex area of costs law and strive for a just outcome.
