header-logo header-logo

30 June 2011 / Bernard Pressman
Issue: 7472 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Cost control

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

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
Jonathan Fisher KC’s wide-ranging fraud report contains worthwhile proposals, but turning them into workable reform will require money, capacity and political will
A Court of Appeal ruling shows that a failed nuisance claim may still leave a neighbour liable in negligence where foreseeable harm could readily have been avoided
The government has stepped back from a proposed early-release exclusion limited to unlawful act manslaughter, opting instead to exclude all manslaughter sentences
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience
back-to-top-scroll