header-logo header-logo

Why jurisdiction matters

26 January 2012 / Kartik Mittal
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , EU , Costs
printer mail-detail

Kartik Mittal offers some tips on securing security for costs orders

An application for security for costs is a popular and effective tool used by lawyers in litigation and arbitration to protect the defendant against the risk that the claimants, if they lose, will not discharge their obligations under a costs order made against them. One of the grounds under which the defendant can request the court to make an order for security for costs is that the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales (CPR r 25.13(2)(a)). 

 
To be successful in an application for security for costs the defendant is required to prove that:
  • The claimant is resident out of jurisdiction but not resident in a Brussels or Lugano Convention state
  • The countries currently governed by the Brussels and Lugano Conventions are the member states of the EC and the European Free Trade Area.

There will be obstacles to or a burden of enforcement
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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll