In the case of Infinity v Khan Partnership (CA, 19.4.21) the Court of Appeal addressed security for costs in a professional negligence case.
The Court of Appeal held that the court should take into account all circumstances in considering the type of security to be given; that the recoverable cost of the premium for ATE cover/Deed of Indemnity was a relevant fact for the court; that it was a serious disadvantage to the Defendant entitled to security for costs to be faced with such a potential cost; and that it was entitled to require the Claimant to make payment into court instead. Nugee LJ (giving the lead judgment, with which Moylan and Birss LJ agreed) also considered general security for costs principles and the requirement for proper evidence as to the Claimant’s ability to make payment into court. Dan Stacey of Hailsham Chambers was Counsel for the Appellant, instructed by The Khan Partnership.
You can read the full judgment here.