This Practice Note considers the condition under CPR 25.27(b)(i) as to whether security for costs will be ordered on the basis that the claimant is resident outside the jurisdiction ie England and Wales. This rule has undergone changes to both the numbering and text. For insight, see: Changes to CPR 25. For information on the other conditions under CPR 25.27(b), see Practice Note: Security for costs—requirements and conditions (CPR 25.27). The rationale for this condition is that enforcement of an order may be more difficult or costly when enforcing in certain jurisdictions, as explained by the Court of Appeal in Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait (2001): ‘46…The rationale of the discretion to order security on that ground is that enforcement of an order for security for costs abroad may be more difficult or costly than elsewhere: cf Sir Jeffery Bowman's 1997 Review, paragraphs 33–37...’ Summary of the court’s approach The Court of Appeal provided summarised the relevant principles in Chernukhin v Danilina (2018), as follows: ‘(1) For jurisdiction under

This Practice Note considers whether the court will make an order for security for costs in cases in which there are counterclaims. It considers whether the claimant can obtain security for costs against the counterclaiming defendant as well as whether a counterclaiming defendant is able to seek security for costs against a claimant. 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: This Practice Note is one of a series considering issues relating to security for costs under CPR 25. The other Practice Notes are set out in Security for costs—overview. Can the claimant obtain security for costs against the counterclaiming defendant? Where the defendant has brought a counterclaim, a question

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. The old rule 25 can be accessed here: This Practice Note considers the Crabtree principle and how it applies. It also provides examples of cases involving counterclaims where the Crabtree principle may not apply. What is the Crabtree principle? Where a security for costs order is made, a failure to comply with the order will result in the claim being struck out. In cases where there is a counterclaim, the issues between the parties would continue to be litigated on the counterclaim due to it having an independent vitality of its own. This may lead to an unfair result as there would be one sided litigation. In such cases, the courts will seek to ensure justice between the parties by applying what is known as the ‘Crabtree principle’. The ‘Crabtree principle’ is named after the decision in B

This Practice Note considers Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and practice directions which provide orders for security for costs which are equivalent to those available under CPR 25. Information and guidance about security for costs is available in a suite of Practice Notes, see: Security for costs—overview. What provisions are available to seek security for costs? When considering a security for costs application, generally the first consideration is whether the rules in CPR 25 (Interim Remedies and Security for Costs) assist. However, alongside the provisions in CPR 25 there are other Parts of the CPR as well as practice directions which provide for orders equivalent to a security for costs order. As the Court of Appeal in Olatawura v Abiloye (2002) held these are 'tantamount' to orders for security for costs. These were identified as: • CPR 3.1(3)—allows the court to make any order conditional on (among other things) the payment of money into court. For guidance, see Practice Note: Judgments and orders—drafting and formalities—Conditional orders • CPR 3.1(5)—empowers the court to order a party that has, without

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.

This Practice Note considers the level of security the court may order when determining an application for security for costs. It considers the court’s approach including whether to base the level of security on costs being awarded on a standard or indemnity costs basis. It looks at how the court determine the level of security, eg it considers the value of the available assets, whether the amount sought is excessive, the effect of costs budgets, the effect of a conditional fee agreement, the effect of enforcement issues and whether the respondent is able to pay any costs order. It also looks at whether stated or part payments can be orders and whether the court will change the level of security that has been ordered. 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

This Practice Note sets out information to assist with making an application for security for costs, which covers the letter of request and the court application if security for costs is not provided. It identifies the documents to be filed, considers in detail the evidence to be provided and notes the terms of the court order. This Practice Note looks at whether an applicant can renew an application for security for costs or whether this will be considered to be an abuse of process. It also covers opposing an application and the undertakings by the respondent. 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: This is one of a suite of Practice

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [ [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION OR KING’S BENCH DIVISION] [Insert court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK before [The Honourable Mr Justice OR The Honourable

This Practice Note considers the requirement and procedure for paying monies into court following an order being made for security for costs. It also considers applications for funds to be paid out to a party, as well as applications for surplus funds to be paid to meet a judgment. This Practice Note is written on the basis that the security for costs application was brought by the claimant. However, the same principles apply in other scenarios such as where the application is brought by the claimant against a counterclaiming defendant. This is also 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

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 changed. The old rule 25 can be accessed here: This Practice Note considers the requirements for an application for security for costs and the conditions that need to be satisfied under CPR 27.13. This Practice Note is one of a series that considers 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

This Practice Note considers the opposition to a security for costs application on the basis that it would stifle the ability of the claimant to pursue their claim against the defendant. This Practice Note is drafted on the basis that the security for costs application has been made by the defendant. In the case of a counterclaim, a security for costs application may be made by the defendant to a counterclaim, ie the claimant. In the case of a Part 20 claim, a security for costs application can be made by a Part 20 defendant against a Part 20 claimant. The Practice Note should be construed accordingly in such cases. 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.

This Practice Note considers security for costs under CPR 25. It explains what an order for security for costs is, who it may be sought against as well as the circumstances in which such an order is generally not available. It considers the court’s general discretion to make an order for security for costs, when security can be sought, the impact of whether such an order would stifle a claim as well as the ability of the claimant to provide the security sought. There is also guidance on the limitations in respect of availability of security for costs, the considerations which may arise in cases involving funders as well as insolvent claimants, winding cases and committal cases. 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