Security for costs

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.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The Law Society’s AI strategy and response to government

The Law Society has responded to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology’s call for evidence on the AI Growth Lab, stressing the need for a proportionate regulatory approach that supports innovation while maintaining professional standards. In a press release dated 6 January 2026, the sector’s widespread willingness to embrace lawtech was highlighted, with two-thirds of lawyers said to ‘already use AI tools in their work’, alongside an ongoing uncertainty as to the risks and ‘exact requirements for data security, oversight and liability’. Separately, The Law Society’s ‘Introduction to lawtech’ guide published on 29 December 2025 observed that client demand for ‘greater efficiency, transparency and cost control, especially in corporate legal services’ has been a key driver for AI usage, with larger firms leading adoption and medium-sized firms catching up. The Law Society says it will continue to work with the government to ensure AI benefits both firms and clients, with its strategy focused on the following three key outcomes: i) innovation in legal service delivery; ii) an effective AI regulatory landscape, influenced by the legal sector; and iii) integrity through responsible AI use, supporting the rule of law and access to justice. Links to consultation responses and downloadable submissions on a range of AI-related issues, including data processing, ransomware resilience and the use of AI outputs in criminal proceedings (among others), are included on The Law Society’s ‘AI and lawtech: government policy and regulation’ page (updated on 18 December 2025), which also invites members to share their views and identify any gaps in support or guidance.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents