Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In New Tasty Bakery v MA Enterprise, HHJ Hacon, in making an order for security for costs, explains why he did not take into account either the defendant’s delay in making the application or the fact it had made a settlement offer. The case also reiterates the need for a claimant to provide evidence to support any contention that the making of such an order would stifle its claim.
One basis on which security for costs may be ordered is that the claimant is insolvent (CPR 25.13(2)(c)). Where the debt of the claimant is owed to the sole director and shareholder it may be argued that as the debt will never be called in the company
is not technically insolvent so as to seek to avoid the insolvency requirement. This was the situation in this case but HHJ Hacon did not consider this to be a relevant factor in determining whether or not to grant a security for costs order. Instead,
he considered the following three factors to be relevant:
Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution subscribers enjoy a wealth of expert analysis. For further guidance on the establishing security for costs, see Practice Note: Security for costs—procedure
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Janna is a dispute resolution lawyer. She deals primarily with cross border issues and is active in the work being undertaken in relation to the implications of Brexit for Dispute Resolution lawyers. Janna also heads up a LexisNexis costs team bringing together expertise from across the company to deal with the costs issues facing the profession.
0330 161 1234