Home / Costs help / Security for costs checker

Free tool

Security for Costs Checker

Led by Diellza Nika Hyseni and Mentor Nika · Updated 21 October 2026

Check the conditions for security for costs under CPR 25.26 to 25.29, as renumbered on 6 April 2025: each condition in its exact words with the rule and the cases, the discretion the court must exercise, and the procedure. A checklist, not a verdict, and never an amount. From DMD Costs, law costs draftsmen in Westhoughton, Bolton.

Free, with no sign-up
The April 2025 rules
Every condition sourced
Nothing leaves your browser

The checker applies CPR Part 25 Section VI as substituted from 6 April 2025, and the cases named, as they stood on 21 October 2026. It lists the conditions and the factors; the court decides whether a condition is met, whether an order is just, and the amount, form and time of any security. It is a guide, not legal advice, and it never suggests an amount.

Key points

DMD Costs’ security for costs checker is a free online tool that sets out the conditions for security for costs in CPR 25.27 as a checklist, with the exact words of each rule, the discretion factors and the procedure.
It is completely free, with no sign-up, and runs in your browser; nothing you enter is sent to DMD Costs. It never suggests an amount of security: that is for the court (CPR 25.26(3)).
Since 6 April 2025 the security for costs rules are CPR 25.26 to 25.29, not 25.12 to 25.15: Part 25 was replaced in full by SI 2025/106, with no transitional provision.
The court may order security only if one of the conditions in r.25.27(b) applies, or an enactment permits it, and it is satisfied that an order is just in all the circumstances (r.25.27(a)).
The residence condition now reads simply “the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction”: the old exception for residents of Hague 2005 states, including the EU, has gone (r.25.27(b)(i); SI 2025/106, with no transitional provision for Part 25).
Residence abroad is not enough on its own: the court needs objectively justified grounds about obstacles to, or the burden of, enforcement (Bestfort [2016] EWCA Civ 1099; Chernukhin v Danilina [2018] EWCA Civ 1802).
A costs judge was not persuaded the costs court has power to order security for the costs of an inter partes detailed assessment (Magomedov v Rabinovich [2026] EWHC 962 (SCCO) at [44]).

How to use the security for costs checker

Say what the security is for. A claim or counterclaim, an appeal, a detailed assessment, a Solicitors Act assessment, an arbitration challenge, or a foreign judgment registration.
Say who is applying. Security is for a party who is in substance a defendant, so the checker asks who is applying and against whom.
Describe the other party. An individual or a company, where they live or are managed and controlled, and, for a Hague 2019 state, when the claim was issued.
Answer the condition questions. Means, address changes, the address in the claim form, whose benefit the claim is for, steps with assets, and anyone funding the claim.
Read the checklist. Each condition shows as appearing to be met, not met or needing more facts, with its rule; then the discretion factors and the procedure.

The test: a condition, then justice

The court may make an order for security for costs if “it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to make such an order” (r.25.27(a)) and “either an enactment permits the court to require security for costs, or one or more of the following conditions apply” (r.25.27(b)). The conditions are questions of fact, and the applicant must prove one; once a condition is met, everything else, whether to order security and the amount, manner and time, is discretion (Qatar v Phoenix [2025] EWCA Civ 1300 at [9], [15]; Infinity Distribution v Khan Partnership [2021] EWCA Civ 565 at [29]–[31]). Security is for a party who is in substance a defendant (r.25.26(1)), including a defendant to a counterclaim (CPR 20.3); a defendant who only defends cannot be made to give it.

The six conditions explained

Condition (i)

“the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction” (r.25.27(b)(i)).

“Jurisdiction” means, unless the context otherwise requires, England and Wales (CPR 2.3(1)), so on the wording residents of Scotland, Northern Ireland, the EU and Switzerland are all within it. A company resides where its central management and control is exercised (Texuna v Cairn Energy [2004] EWHC 1102 (Comm) at [6]). The Court of Appeal applied the 2025 wording to Swiss residents in a claim issued in 2020: no pre-Brexit carve-out survives (Qatar v Phoenix [2025] EWCA Civ 1300 at [10]–[14]).

Condition (ii)

“the claimant is a company or other body (whether incorporated inside or outside England and Wales) and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so” (r.25.27(b)(ii)).

“Reason to believe” is lower than proof on the balance of probabilities, but the belief must be that the company will be unable to pay, not that it may be (Jirehouse Capital v Beller [2008] EWCA Civ 908 at [24]–[26]; Qatar v Phoenix at [15]). It covers any company, limited or not (Jirehouse at [17]–[19]). An after-the-event policy can answer it only if it gives sufficient protection, such as anti-avoidance terms or a deed of indemnity (Premier Motorauctions v PwC [2017] EWCA Civ 1872 at [20]–[33]).

Condition (iii)

“the claimant has changed their address since the claim was commenced with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation” (r.25.27(b)(iii)).

The words require a purpose (r.25.27(b)(iii)): a move alone, with no evidence of why, does not meet the condition. The applicant must prove the condition (Brewer v Christie Manson & Woods [2026] EWHC 126 (Ch) at [17]).

Condition (iv)

“the claimant failed to give their address in the claim form, or gave an incorrect address” (r.25.27(b)(iv)).

The old rule spoke of an incorrect address “in that form”; the 2025 wording dropped those words. No case yet says whether an incorrect address given elsewhere now counts.

Condition (v)

“the claimant is acting as a nominal claimant, other than as a representative claimant under Part 19, and there is reason to believe that they will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so” (r.25.27(b)(v)).

A person with a significant interest in the outcome will rarely if ever be nominal; a trustee, executor or personal representative is not ordinarily nominal; typically there must be some element of deliberate duplicity or window-dressing (Chuku v Chuku [2017] EWHC 541 (Ch) at [26]).

Condition (vi)

“the claimant has taken steps in relation to their assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against them” (r.25.27(b)(vi)).

The test is objective, the effect of the steps and not the motive, and there is no time limit; motive and timing go to the discretion (Ackerman v Ackerman [2011] EWHC 2183 (Ch) at [16], adopted in Qatar v Phoenix at [22]).

The enactment limb covers, for example, a challenge or appeal under ss.67 to 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, where s.70(6) permits security but bars ordering it because the applicant lives, or is incorporated or managed, outside the United Kingdom. The old Companies Act 1985 s.726(1) power for England and Wales was repealed on 1 October 2009.

Old and new rule numbers

Part 25 was replaced in full from 6 April 2025 (SI 2025/106, r.7 and the Schedule). Many guides and forms still use the old numbers.

Old rule (to 5 April 2025)	New rule (from 6 April 2025)	Change
25.12(1): who may apply	25.26(1)	Wording only
25.12(2): written evidence	25.26(2)	None
25.12(3): the court fixes the amount, manner and time	25.26(3)	“Will” became “must”
25.13(1)(a): just in all the circumstances	25.27(a)	None
25.13(1)(b): a condition, or an enactment	25.27(b), opening words	Reordered
25.13(2)(a): resident out of the jurisdiction, but not in a Hague 2005 state	25.27(b)(i)	Exception removed
25.13(2)(c): company or other body (inside or outside Great Britain)	25.27(b)(ii)	Now “England and Wales”
25.13(2)(d): changed address to evade	25.27(b)(iii)	None
25.13(2)(e): no address, or an incorrect address “in that form”	25.27(b)(iv)	“In that form” dropped
25.13(2)(f): nominal claimant	25.27(b)(v)	None
25.13(2)(g): steps in relation to assets	25.27(b)(vi)	None
25.14: security from someone other than the claimant	25.28	“Share of any recovery”
25.15: security for the costs of an appeal	25.29	None
Not an interim remedy (old 25.1(1))	25.1(1)(q): now an interim remedy	The 25.2(3) bar now appears to apply

Residence abroad: the discretion does the work

Because every non-resident now passes the residence condition, the filter is the discretion. The court must act on objectively justified grounds relating to obstacles to, or the burden of, enforcing against this claimant or in this country (Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait, as quoted in Bestfort v Ras Al Khaimah [2016] EWCA Civ 1099 at [51]). A real risk is enough; a likelihood is not needed (Bestfort at [73]–[77]; Chernukhin v Danilina [2018] EWCA Civ 1802 at [51]–[52]). There is no presumption in the applicant’s favour (Ping Fai Yuen v Fun Yung Li [2026] EWHC 532 (KB) at [122]). The evidence should cover residence, where the assets are and the practical difficulties of enforcing (Commercial Court Guide, Appendix 10 para 3). The UK left the Lugano Convention, and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention has been in force for the UK since 1 July 2025, with the EU states other than Denmark, Ukraine, Uruguay, Albania, Montenegro and Andorra, for proceedings started once it was in force between the two states (Art 16).

Funders, assignors and appeals

Under r.25.28 security can be sought from a person who “the person has assigned the right to the claim to the claimant with a view to avoiding the possibility of a costs order being made against them, or has contributed or agreed to contribute to the claimant’s costs in return for a share of any recovery in the proceedings”, if “the person is someone against whom a costs order may be made”, and it is just. A properly capitalised commercial funder should rarely need to give security (Rowe v Ingenious Media [2021] EWCA Civ 29 at [75]–[78]). On an appeal, r.25.29(1) allows security against an appellant, or a respondent who also appeals, on the same grounds as against a claimant, and r.25.29(2) adds a limited company with reason to believe it cannot pay the costs of the appeal. First-instance costs are not normally covered (Sykes v Sumiki [2025] EWHC 2157 (KB) at [30]).

The discretion: what the court weighs

Stifling: an order that would probably stop a genuine claim should not be made; the claimant must prove it, backers included (Goldtrail [2017] UKSC 57 at [12]–[24]).
Affordability and candour: full and candid evidence of means (Al-Koronky v Time-Life [2006] EWCA Civ 1123 at [25]–[31]).
Delay: apply promptly, or risk refusal or security for future costs only (Spy Academy v Sakar [2009] EWCA Civ 985 at [14]–[15]).
Merits: only where clear-cut, “certain or almost certain” in the Commercial Court’s words (Danilina at [69]–[70]; Appendix 10 para 4).
A counterclaim on the same issues is a powerful factor against an order but not decisive (Autoweld v Kito [2010] EWCA Civ 1469 at [58]–[60]); an undertaking to consent to dismissal of the counterclaim if the claim is struck out may unlock an order (Dumrul v Standard Chartered [2010] EWHC 2625 (Comm) at [19]–[20]).
A company with no means: once the condition is met and no stifling is shown, an order is normally appropriate (Premier Motorauctions at [37]).

How to apply

Write first asking for security and financial information. Then issue an application notice on form N244 (practice form PF43 gives the wording), supported by written evidence (r.25.26(2)); PF43 says a draft statement of the defendant’s costs should be filed with it. Pay the court fee for an application (see the civil court fees calculator). The order must fix the amount, manner and time (r.25.26(3)); practice form PF44 is the model. Security can be staged (Danilina at [67]), and failure to give it usually leads to time to comply and then liberty to apply to strike out (Appendix 10 para 6). There is no practice direction: PD 25A and PD 25B were omitted from 6 April 2025.

Security in detailed assessment

In Magomedov v Rabinovich [2026] EWHC 962 (SCCO), a single first-instance decision that does not bind other costs judges, the costs judge was not persuaded that the costs court has power to order security for the costs of inter partes detailed assessment proceedings, and would have refused it on discretion anyway ([32]–[60]). Use an interim costs certificate (CPR 47.16), or ask the court deciding the claim to include assessment costs in its security order ([31]). Read our note: Magomedov: security for the costs of detailed assessment.

Making the application: the N244 application notice builder and the civil court fees calculator
Reading the order: the costs order decoder
Every free tool in one place: costs help for solicitors

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Under CPR 25.27 the court may order security if it is satisfied that it is just in all the circumstances, and either an enactment permits security or one of six conditions applies: the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction; it is a company or other body and there is reason to believe it will be unable to pay; it changed address to evade the litigation; it gave no address, or an incorrect one, in the claim form; it is a nominal claimant unable to pay; or it has taken steps with its assets that would make a costs order hard to enforce.

CPR 25.26 to 25.29, in Section VI of Part 25, from 6 April 2025. Part 25 was replaced in full by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025 (SI 2025/106), with no transitional provision for it. The old rules 25.12 to 25.15 are gone, although the Commercial Court Guide, the Court of Appeal Guide and practice forms PF43 and PF44 still cite them.

The condition can be met: since 6 April 2025 it reads “the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction”, with no exception for Hague 2005 or EU states (r.25.27(b)(i)); the Court of Appeal refused to read in the old carve-out for Swiss residents in a 2020 claim (Qatar v Phoenix [2025] EWCA Civ 1300 at [10]–[14]). Whether an order is just depends on a real risk of obstacles to, or extra burden of, enforcement there (Bestfort [2016] EWCA Civ 1099 at [73]–[77]). For proceedings started on or after 1 July 2025, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention may help enforcement in EU states other than Denmark (Art 16); no reported decision on security has yet weighed it.

Yes, on the wording: “jurisdiction” means England and Wales (CPR 2.3(1)). But an English money judgment can be registered and enforced in Scotland and Northern Ireland under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s.18 and Sch 6, which suggests a real risk of obstacles to enforcement will be hard to show without more. That is our view: no reported decision yet considers the discretion for these residents under the 2025 rule.

Not if the claimant is an individual living in England and Wales: poverty alone is not a condition. A company or other body is different: there must be reason to believe it will be unable to pay (r.25.27(b)(ii)). Against an individual, a payment into court can still be ordered as a condition of another order (CPR 3.1(3); for example on a summary judgment application, CPR 24.6(c)), or for an unjustified failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or protocol (CPR 3.1(5)). Either way the court bears Part 25’s principles in mind and uses the power with great caution (Huscroft v P&O Ferries [2010] EWCA Civ 1483 at [14]; Ali v Hudson [2003] EWCA Civ 1793 at [40]).

An order that would probably stop a genuine claim should not be made. The claimant must prove it on the balance of probabilities, including that it cannot raise the money from backers such as directors, shareholders, friends or family, and must be full and candid about its means (Goldtrail Travel v Onur Air [2017] UKSC 57 at [12]–[24]; Al-Koronky v Time-Life [2006] EWCA Civ 1123 at [25]–[31]).

Promptly. Since 6 April 2025 security is an interim remedy (r.25.1(1)(q)), so on the face of the rules a defendant cannot apply before it has filed an acknowledgment of service or a defence, unless the court directs otherwise (r.25.2(3)); no case on this has been found. In the Commercial Court first applications should be made no later than the case management conference (Appendix 10 para 1). Delay can lead to refusal or to security for future costs only (Spy Academy v Sakar [2009] EWCA Civ 985 at [14]–[15]).

Yes, under r.25.28, against a person who has contributed or agreed to contribute to the claimant’s costs in return for a share of any recovery, if a costs order may be made against them and it is just. A properly capitalised commercial funder should rarely, if ever, need to be ordered to give security (Rowe v Ingenious Media [2021] EWCA Civ 29 at [75]–[78]).

By application notice (form N244), supported by written evidence (r.25.26(2)) showing the condition relied on and why an order is just. Practice form PF43 says a draft statement of the defendant’s costs of the proceedings should be filed with the application notice. If the court makes an order it must determine the amount and direct the manner and time within which security is given (r.25.26(3)): for example payment into court, a bank guarantee, or an ATE deed of indemnity (Infinity Distribution v Khan Partnership [2021] EWCA Civ 565).

Probably not from the costs court, on the only authority. In Magomedov v Rabinovich [2026] EWHC 962 (SCCO), a single first-instance decision that does not bind other costs judges, the costs judge was not persuaded there is power to order security for the costs of inter partes detailed assessment proceedings ([32]–[44]). The alternatives are an interim costs certificate (CPR 47.16), or asking the court deciding the claim to include assessment costs in the security it orders ([31]). For Solicitors Act assessments the position is unsettled (Bugsby Property v Stewarts Law [2026] EWHC 275 (SCCO) at [14]–[16]; Magomedov at [45]).

No. The amount, form and time are for the court (r.25.26(3)), and a statement of the costs to be secured should be prepared from the file by a costs professional. The checker is a free checklist of the conditions, the discretion and the procedure, with no sign-up, and nothing you type leaves your browser.

Costs are all we do

We work for claimant solicitor firms: we draft the bill, answer the Points of Dispute and negotiate the costs to settlement. The fee is fixed and agreed before any work begins.

Request a fixed-fee quote →More free tools