Law360, London: A security services provider suing Barclays Bank UK PLC over a US$1.8m payment it claims to have been fraudulently tricked into transferring has denied the bank’s attempts to deflect the suit, arguing it was not negligent and did not cause its own loss.

A security deposit is a sum of money provided by one party (most commonly a tenant, licensee, or contracting counterparty) to secure performance of obligations and protect the other party against loss, damage, or default. In practice, security deposits are widely used in residential and commercial leases, construction contracts, and commercial agreements, and may take the form of cash, stakeholder-held funds, or equivalent security (for example, a rent deposit deed or escrow).In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, residential tenancy deposits are regulated, including by the Housing Act 2004 and associated tenancy deposit protection schemes. In Ireland, the Residential Tenancies Acts and Residential Tenancies Board guidance govern similar protections. In Scotland, tenancy deposits are governed by the Tenancy Deposit Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2011.Security deposits are typically held subject to contractual terms specifying conditions for deduction, repayment, interest, and dispute resolution. They are distinct from guarantees and letters of credit but may operate alongside them. Case law in all jurisdictions addresses issues such as whether the deposit constitutes a trust, when set‑off or forfeiture is permissible, and the reasonableness of deductions on termination of the underlying relationship.

A generic description of the suite of charges, guarantees and other security taken by a financier in respect of a financing facility.

MLex: Brand name drugmakers now have more opportunities to secure extended exclusivity for their medicines throughout the European Union, thanks to a recent EU Court of Justice ruling in disputes over Supplementary Protection Certificates, or SPCs, for medicinal products in the EU.

This Practice Note considers the availability of security for claims (or security for claim or security for a claim) in international arbitration proceedings. What is security for claim(s)? Security for claim(s) is an interim measure that allows an applicant (ie the claimant or the respondent in respect of its counterclaim) to secure, in advance of a final arbitral award, the amount that it is claiming against the opposing party (the respondent). Security for claim(s) is intended to ensure the payment of a final award or the availability of funds against which a final award may be enforced. As a matter of practical strategy, security for claim(s) is usually sought when an applicant has real reasons to believe that the opposing party may be unwilling and/or unable to satisfy any award made against it at the end of the arbitration. If granted, the opposing party must provide security for the sum ordered for the duration of the arbitration or for such other time that

Dispute Resolution analysis: His Honour Judge Keyser QC in the Technology and Construction Court has dismissed an application seeking disclosure of the identity of a third party funder. The court has the power to grant such orders to give efficacy to CPR 25.14, under which a defendant may seek an order for security against parties other than the claimant. The application failed as a result of a lack of evidence demonstrating the funder met the conditions set out in CPR 25.14(2)(b). Both parties further applied for security of costs against the other party. This case is of particular interest to practitioners as the defendant had already commenced a claim against the claimant on principally the same points in foreign proceedings and, therefore, the defendant’s English and Welsh cross-claim arguably had obvious independent vitality. The court refused to grant security for costs against the defendant but made an order for security against the claimant.

The provisions for security for costs in Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, 20.6 provide that a respondent to any application may apply for security for the costs of the proceedings if they fulfil one (or more) of the gateway conditions set out in FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 20.7. The court may also make an order for security for costs on the same principles against an appellant, or against a respondent who also appeals, in accordance with FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, 20.8. Although useful in some circumstances, these provisions are likely to have limited application in family proceedings because there is no general principle that costs should follow the event. Thus, in MG v AR (Security for Costs), Mostyn J said: ‘In contrast to the civil case law, it is my judgment that in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by considering the merits that a view can be taken of the likelihood of an award of

The notion of ‘security for costs’ will be familiar to common law lawyers but perhaps less so to civil lawyers, as it is closely related to the common law rule that, in general, the costs of bringing proceedings should ‘follow the event’ or, put more simply, the losing party should pay. In litigation in England and Wales, the general rule, if a court decides to make an order on costs, is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the recoverable costs of the successful party, although the court retains a wide discretion in this regard—see: Costs orders—overview. To bolster this principle, the mechanism of security for costs exists and allows a defendant (whether to the main claim or a counterclaim) to apply for an order that the claimant provides security for the likely recoverable costs the defendant will incur in defending the claim—see Practice Note: Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court’s discretion. It is difficult to argue, as a matter of principle, that such a mechanism should not be available in international commercial

This Practice Note considers the use of After the Event insurance (ATE insurance) as security for costs. It is one of a suite of Practice Notes considering issues relating to security for costs under CPR 25. The other Practice Notes are set out in: Security for costs—overview. There are also other CPR provisions which provide for orders which are equivalent to a security for costs order. For more information, see Practice Note: Security for costs—equivalent orders. Note, on 6 April 2025 amendments to CPR 25 came into force which re-numbered the former provisions of CPR 25 and made amendments to some of the wording of its provisions on security for costs. This Practice Note refers to the previous rule 25 as ‘old rule 25’ and highlights any differences between the current CPR 25 and the old rule 25, where applicable. In respect of the conditions to be satisfied for the court to be able to make an order for security for costs, CPR 25.13 was renumbered as CPR 25.27 and some of its provisions have

This Practice Note provides information on security for costs, what it is, why it is sought, the conditions to be satisfied and the key points to consider when making an application for security. It provides information on the potential defences to an application for security for costs and discusses the potential impact of counterclaims and the Crabtree principle. It is an introduction to this topic and should be read in conjunction with the following Practice Notes: • Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretion • Security for costs—requirements and conditions (CPR 25.27) • Security for costs—making an application • Security for costs—level of security • Security for costs—ATE insurance • Security for costs—counterclaims and set-offs • Security for costs—counterclaims and the Crabtree principle • Security for costs—stifling a claim What is security for costs? Security for costs is an interim remedy which requires a claimant to pay money into court, or to provide some other form of security, in order to be able to continue with their

This Practice Note provides information on what to consider when making an application for additional security for costs where circumstances have changed since the original security for costs was ordered. This is one of a suite of Practice Notes considering issues relating to security for costs under CPR 25. The other Practice Notes are set out in Security for costs—overview. Note, on 6 April 2025 amendments to CPR 25 came into force which re-numbered the former provisions of CPR 25 and made amendments to some of the wording of its provisions on security for costs. This Practice Note refers to the previous rule 25 as ‘old rule 25’ and highlights any differences between the current CPR 25 and the old rule 25, where applicable. The old rule 25 can be accessed here: Relevance of the judgment under which the previous security for costs was ordered When considering whether to make an order for additional security for costs, the court will have regard to the previous court judgments dealing with security for costs. In Lewis Thermal

This Practice Note considers the issues which may arise after an order for security has been made. These include whether an order for security for costs can be varied after it has been made, whether proceedings are stayed pending payment, whether an appeal can be made against the security for costs order and what happens if a party does not make the payment required. Note, on 6 April 2025 amendments to CPR 25 came into force which re-numbered the former provisions of CPR 25 and made amendments to some of the wording of its provisions on security for costs. This Practice Note refers to the previous rule 25 as ‘old rule 25’ and highlights any differences between the current CPR 25 and the old rule 25, where applicable. The old rule 25 can be accessed here: Requirement to comply with the order Where the court has made an order for security for costs, the party against which it has been made must ensure that it complies with the terms of the order. The courts