Security for costs

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

In litigation, the usual position in relation to costs is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the successful party’s recoverable costs. Such costs may be substantial, especially when dealing with cases involving a foreign element which gives rise to additional costs, eg travel, expert evidence on foreign law, etc. While a defendant may be confident of their ability to defend the claim, they may nevertheless have concerns about potential difficulties in recovering costs that are provided for in any costs order against the claimant. The purpose of a security for costs order, which is an interim remedy, is to alleviate that concern by requiring the claimant to pay money into court, or to provide some other form of security, as a precondition to being able to continue with the claim. Where an order for security for costs is made, the proceedings will often be stayed, pending payment or provision of security.

Note, security for costs can be sought against the claimant or, in the case of a counterclaim, against the defendant. In cases where the defendant has brought a counterclaim specific considerations will apply.

Security

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Third party costs—Court of Appeal confirms stay pending detailed assessment is case management decision (Federal Republic of Nigeria v VR Global Partners LP)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

UKJT Report on Control of Digital Assets

The report, prepared by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce's Control Panel and published on 19 March 2026, provides technical, non-binding guidance for courts and legal practitioners on how digital assets are controlled in practice. The Panel was established at the invitation of the Lord Chancellor, following the Law Commission’s recognition that digital assets constitute a distinct ‘third category’ of property. The report emphasises that ‘control’ is a factual, functional concept, centred on the ability to exclude others, use and transfer an asset. It analyses various forms of control, including direct, multi-party, smart contract-based, delegated, and layered control, highlighting that real-world arrangements are often complex and overlapping. The report notes that the absence of a central operator and privacy-enhancing technologies may limit the effectiveness of traditional legal remedies. Overall, it points to a need for the law to develop incrementally in response to evolving technologies, with the courts adopting a flexible, context-specific approach focused on how control is in fact exercised in any given system.

Professional negligence and limitation—the roll of impecuniosity in constructive knowledge (Kay v Martineau Johnson)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal considered the correct approaches to actual knowledge and constructive knowledge in the context of solicitors’ professional negligence. Of note was the consideration of whether impecuniosity was a relevant factor in considering reasonable steps and the taking of expert advice for the purposes of the date of knowledge. Written by James Davies, barrister and Mediator at New Square Chambers.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the publication of the King’s Bench Guide 2026, the minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee following their meeting on 6 February 2026 and the High Court decision in UAB Business Enterprise v Oneta Ltd (expert and factual evidence).

View Dispute Resolution by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Summary assessment—principles

Summary assessment—principlesThis Practice Note explains what a summary assessment of costs is and sets out the key principles to understanding summary assessment, ie when summary assessment can be sought, the circumstances in which summary assessment will not take place and which members of the

Injunctions—costs recovery

Injunctions—costs recoveryThis Practice Note considers the costs position following an application for an interim injunction, the general approach taken by the courts and in what circumstances there will be a departure from the general position. This Practice Note also considers the court’s approach

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)This Practice Note provides assistance in completing Precedent T. This is the court form that the parties are required to use when seeking party agreement, and/or court approval for a change to their agreed/approved

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a
Summary assessment—principles

Summary assessment—principles

Summary assessment—principlesThis Practice Note explains what a summary assessment of costs is and sets out the key principles to understanding summary assessment, ie when summary assessment can be sought, the circumstances in which summary assessment will not take place and which members of the

Injunctions—costs recovery

Injunctions—costs recovery

Injunctions—costs recoveryThis Practice Note considers the costs position following an application for an interim injunction, the general approach taken by the courts and in what circumstances there will be a departure from the general position. This Practice Note also considers the court’s approach

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)This Practice Note provides assistance in completing Precedent T. This is the court form that the parties are required to use when seeking party agreement, and/or court approval for a change to their agreed/approved

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a