Cody v Murray and others [2013] EWHC 3448 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 217 (Nov)
It was settled law that the mere fact of foreign residence was insufficient to justify the exercise of the power conferred by the CPR. If the discretion to order security was to be exercised, it should be on objectively justified grounds relating to obstacles to or the burden of enforcement in the context of the particular foreign claimant or country concerned. The justification for the discretion under CPR 25.13(2)(a) and (b) and 25.15(1) in relation to individuals and companies ordinarily resident abroad was that in some cases there were likely to be substantial obstacles to or a substantial extra burden in enforcing an English judgment, significantly greater than there would be as regards a party resident in England or in a Brussels or Lugano state. Applying settled law to the circumstances, the court was not satisfied that the claimant would be unable to find US$30,000 and, in consequence, be prevented from prosecuting that claim further. Accordingly, an order for the claimant to provide
