header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 October 2025 / Jane Risley
Issue: 8135 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , CPR
printer mail-detail

No jurisdiction on security

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll