Security for costs—evidence required and proportionality considerations (Qatar Investment and Project Developments Holding Co v Pheonix Ancient Art SA)
Dispute resolution analysis: In this security for costs application, the Court of Appeal granted security of £70,000 (reduced from the requested £169,000) against appellants residing outside the jurisdiction. The court affirmed the two-stage approach under CPR 25.29—first establishing threshold conditions under CPR 25.27(b), and second determining whether ordering security is just in the circumstances. The court found that Phoenix's precarious financial position, evidence of asset disposal, and incomplete disclosure justified the order. Notably, the court clarified that pre-Brexit provisions no longer apply to cases issued before December 2020, following the 2025 CPR amendments. The decision provides valuable guidance on evidence requirements for security applications and emphasises the court's focus on proportionality when determining security amounts. Practical implications written by Shilpa Shah of Ropewalk Chambers.