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

Withholding DSAR documents from inspection during data protection proceedings by relying on a Data Protection Act 2018 exemption (Cole v Marlborough College)

Information Law analysis: This claim relates to the scope of production and the application of the exemptions to production of personal data in responding fully to a subject access request. The Claimant, Thomas Cole (Cole), who was a student at the Defendant school, Marlborough College (the College), submitted a data subject access request (DSAR) under Article 15 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) after he was removed from the school following his involvement in a physical altercation with another student. In this half-day case management hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin assessed whether the College was entitled to withhold, in whole or part, documents containing Cole’s personal data, rather than providing the material for inspection ahead of a two-day trial on the data protection claim expected to start in mid-2025. The court held that the College was entitled to withhold some documents (containing Cole’s personal data) on the grounds of the exemption in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, Part 3 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). In short, this exemption provides that a controller is not obliged to disclose information to a data subject where doing so involves disclosing information that relates to another individual who can be identified from that information, whether as the source of information or as the subject of such information. Written by Robyn Bond, associate at Ropes & Gray International LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents