Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Right on the facts; applications for security against a defendant have to be very carefully considered and are hard to justify.

But we are too squeamish about ordering security against claimants and appellants, especially in second appeals. It is wrong that a party, any party, rich or poor, should be taken to court (or to appeal) and win - and be left with a bill for costs and a bad debt. Security by insurance, to meet any order for costs as ssessed if not agreed, should be the norm.

Before 1997 every private sector (and not legally aided) Appellant to the House of Lords had to find security money. That was changed in the intersts of "access to justice". Access for the Respondent to justice seems not to matter.

And don't get me started on "costs-capping". I believe Uber are facing such an application now. If they win, why should they be out of pocket?

Your details

Cancel