Home / Dispute Resolution / Costs and funding / Security for costs

Legal News

Court of Appeal—relevance of defendant’s own funding in security for costs applications (Heathfield International LLC v Axiom Stone (London) Ltd)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published on: 23 August 2021

Published by a LexisNexis Dispute Resolution expert

Table of contents

What are the practical implications of this case?
What was the background?
What did the court decide?
Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that had considered the funding position of the defendant to be a relevant factor when determining whether to make an order for security for costs. However, the Court of Appeal clearly stated that this did not gave rise to a general proposition that a security for costs application could be refused solely on the grounds that a defendant could not afford to fund their own defence. Written by Claire Kretzmann, costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

Popular documents

Pre-action—costs recovery

Pre-action—costs recoveryThis Practice Note considers the recovery of costs incurred pre-action. It sets out provisions in the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981), CPR 44, pre-action protocols and court guides. It notes the provisions for civil cases that come within the fixed costs regime on or after

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)Note, the extension of the fixed costs regime came into force on 1 October 2023. For all civil cases, other than personal injury and disease, the extended fixed costs regime applies (unless the case is specifically excluded) where

Forthwith orders—costs prior to end of proceedings

Forthwith orders—costs prior to end of proceedingsThe general rule for detailed assessmentThe general rule for when detailed assessment is to take place is set out in CPR 47.1 which provides that the costs of any part of the proceedings are not to be determined by detailed assessment until the

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