Bernard Pressman examines the intricacies of security for costs
In Bryan Huscroft v P & O Ferries Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1483, [2011] 2 All ER 762 the Court of Appeal considered how an application for security for costs should be made and under which circumstances security should be ordered (or, more particularly, under which circumstances it should not be ordered). At a case management conference (CMC) in the county court, the claimant (by then living in Portugal and unemployed) was ordered to pay £5,000 into court as security for the defendant’s costs, in default of which the claimant’s case was to be struck out. The claimant appealed the order.
CPR 3.1(3)
Rather than make its application under CPR 25, the defendant made, and was granted its application, under CPR 3.1(3), which provides that: “When the court makes an order, it may—(a) make it subject to conditions, including a condition to pay a sum of money into court; and (b) specify the consequence
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
