Although applications for security for costs are usually made early in proceedings, Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors [2026] EWHC 1051 (Comm) shows that the jurisdiction survives judgment. The decision also shows the limits of post-judgment applications: Bright J granted security only for the costs of detailed assessment proceedings, and refused further security for earlier costs where interim payments on account had already been sought and obtained.
Security for costs – a recap
An application for security for costs must be made in accordance with Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules. CPR r.25.27 sets out the conditions which must be satisfied. The overriding condition is that the court must be satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to make such an order. The defendant must then also show that one or more additional conditions are satisfied. These include: that the claimant is resident out of the jurisdiction; the claimant is a company or other body and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so; and the claimant has taken steps in relation to their assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against them.
It’s worth noting (particularly in this context) that the Commercial Court Guide (Appendix 10) also requires the first application for security to be made no later than the first case management conference.
Summary of the facts
On 3 May 2024, Bright J ordered security for costs in favour of the defendants, Domidias and Mr Severilov, in respect of the costs of their challenge to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the claims against them. Following the hearing of the jurisdiction challenge, Bright J gave judgment in the defendants’ favour on 17 January 2025 and, at the consequentials stage, the claimants were ordered to make an interim payment on account of costs. Domidias was awarded 100% of its costs on the indemnity basis and Mr Severilov 95% on the standard basis. The amount of the interim payment awarded to Domidias was greater than the security that the claimants had provided.
In an application made in February 2026 (over a year after judgment on the jurisdiction challenge), the defendants applied for security for costs to cover matters including: (a) the additional amount spent by Domidias in respect of the jurisdiction challenge; (b) the costs of other applications made by the defendants during the proceedings; and (c) the detailed assessment proceedings, which the defendants had commenced.
Legal principles and their application
Bright J confirmed that a court could order further security for costs in favour of a defendant who had already obtained security if there had been a material change of circumstances. Here, the defendants’ jurisdiction challenges had succeeded and Domidias had been awarded its costs on the indemnity basis.
The difficulty for Domidias and Mr Severilov was that they had already sought and obtained interim payments on account, both for the jurisdiction challenge and for other successful applications. Bright J accepted, in principle, that there may be rare cases in which a successful defendant can seek both an interim payment on account and further security for costs. But he made clear that such cases would be exceptional. Because no indication had been given at the time that further security might later be sought, he treated the earlier applications as an election to seek an interim payment instead. On that basis, he refused further security for the jurisdiction challenge and for the other applications in the case.
The position was different in relation to the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings. No previous security had been sought or ordered for those costs, and no interim payment on account had been made. Although such an application might theoretically have been made earlier, at the consequentials hearing it was not yet clear that detailed assessment would be necessary. Once the assessment proceedings were commenced, the application for security was issued on the same day. Bright J therefore held that the application had been made promptly.
Conclusion
If a defendant has already obtained security for their costs, this judgment will give them pause to consider whether, following a judgment in their favour, they seek a further order for security, or an interim payment on account. In cases such as this, where there are multiple defendants seeking their costs (and – potentially – a limited pot to pay them from), a decision to seek the latter is no doubt sensible. However, such a decision may not be as straightforward when a claimant has deep (and easily accessible) pockets and there are a limited number of defendants seeking recovery.
Either way, given the terms of this judgment, it may be advisable for defendants with the benefit of an existing order securing their costs to raise the possibility of seeking further security when applying for an interim payment on account. Although Bright J considered that such orders should be viewed in the alternative, he did not shut the door on both being made.
