header-logo header-logo

No jurisdiction on security

17 October 2025 / Jane Risley
Issue: 8135 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , CPR
printer mail-detail
232354
Jane Risley analyses a recent ruling with implications for cost recovery for interested parties
  • The High Court’s ruling in The New Lottery Company Ltd & Anor v The Gambling Commission confirms that the court does not have the jurisdiction to award security for costs to interested parties.
  • Currently, there is no provision under the Civil Procedure Rules, nor any established authority, that permits security for costs to be granted in favour of an interested party.
  • Interested parties who contribute to litigation funding should take note of this judgment and its implications for cost recovery.

The recent decision in The New Lottery Company Ltd & Anor v The Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 1522 (TCC) provides clarity on an important procedural issue: whether interested parties to litigation can apply for security for costs.

The High Court has now confirmed that it does not have the power to grant security for costs to interested parties. Mrs Justice Joanna Smith held that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not confer such jurisdiction

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ben Daniels, DAC Beachcroft

NLJ Career Profile: Ben Daniels, DAC Beachcroft

Ben Daniels, newly elected as the next senior partner of DAC Beachcroft, reflects on his leadership inspiration and considers an impish alternative career

Osbornes Law—Lee Henderson

Osbornes Law—Lee Henderson

Family team bolstered by latest partner hire

Freeths—Graeme Danby & John Jeffreys

Freeths—Graeme Danby & John Jeffreys

Firms strengthens national restructuring and insolvency practice with leadership appointments

NEWS
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
In NLJ this week, Ian Smith, emeritus professor at UEA, explores major developments in employment law from the Supreme Court and appellate courts
Writing in NLJ this week, Kamran Rehman and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper examine Operafund Eco-Invest SICAV plc v Spain, where the Commercial Court held that ICSID and Energy Charter Treaty awards cannot be assigned
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School highlights a turbulent end to 2025 in the civil courts, from the looming appeal in Mazur to judicial frustration with ever-expanding bundles, in his final NLJ 'The insider' column of the year
back-to-top-scroll