Ian Wilson KC and William Day write on Security for Costs in the Law Quarterly Review

Ian Wilson KC and William Day have written an article for the April edition of the LQR, now available on Westlaw, on the question of security for costs in cases involving claims and counterclaims.

The article contends that the so-called Crabtree principle – whereby the court has a discretion not to order security where there are claims and cross-claims – is to be explained primarily on the basis that the discretion to order security for costs should not be exercised contrary to scope of the underlying jurisdiction, i.e., to secure costs of a claim rather than costs of a defence. From that starting point, the article criticises the trend in first instance authorities that a so-called Dumrul undertaking (whereby an applicant undertakes to discontinue their own claim if security is not provided and the respondent’s claim is struck out) is treated as a complete answer to the Crabtree principle when it arises. The effect of those recent cases is that, in substance, the applicant obtains security for their own claim.

The article can be found (behind a paywall) in the LQR on Westlaw here.