header-logo header-logo

No jurisdiction on security

17 October 2025 / Jane Risley
Issue: 8135 / Categories: Features , Profession , Costs , CPR
printer mail-detail
232354
Jane Risley analyses a recent ruling with implications for cost recovery for interested parties
  • The High Court’s ruling in The New Lottery Company Ltd & Anor v The Gambling Commission confirms that the court does not have the jurisdiction to award security for costs to interested parties.
  • Currently, there is no provision under the Civil Procedure Rules, nor any established authority, that permits security for costs to be granted in favour of an interested party.
  • Interested parties who contribute to litigation funding should take note of this judgment and its implications for cost recovery.

The recent decision in The New Lottery Company Ltd & Anor v The Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 1522 (TCC) provides clarity on an important procedural issue: whether interested parties to litigation can apply for security for costs.

The High Court has now confirmed that it does not have the power to grant security for costs to interested parties. Mrs Justice Joanna Smith held that the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not confer such jurisdiction

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll