Скачать или смотреть TMC LEGAL | PICKERING V THOMAS MANSFIELD SOLICITORS LIMITED [2025] EWHC 3021 (SCCO)

SCCO Rules That Solicitors Act Proceedings Qualify As "Claims" For CPR 25.26 Purposes But Dismisses Security Application On The Facts

Costs Judge Nagalingam dismisses a solicitor firm's £150,000 security for costs application in Solicitors Act detailed assessment proceedings, confirming that mortgage repayments and property investments do not constitute asset dissipation under CPR 25.27(b)(vi).

🔑 Key Points
Security for costs applications are procedurally permissible in Solicitors Act 1974 proceedings, even though initiated by the client
Converting liquid funds into property equity doesn't satisfy CPR 25.27(b)(vi) if assets remain enforceable
Evidential burden rests entirely on the applicant solicitor—clients claiming no impecuniosity have no disclosure obligation
Courts won't infer asset dissipation where applicants fail to utilise Part 18 requests or specific disclosure applications
Substantial prior payments on account weigh heavily against ordering further security

📋 Case Summary
Case: Pickering v Thomas Mansfield Solicitors Limited [2025] EWHC 3021 (SCCO)
Judge: Costs Judge Nagalingam
Court: Senior Courts Costs Office
Outcome: Security for costs application dismissed; applicant solicitors ordered to pay client's costs
Thomas Mansfield Solicitors sought £150,000 security for costs against their former client Lisa Pickering in detailed assessment proceedings concerning invoices totalling £2,533,579.14. The client had already paid £1,175,849.50 on account. The firm argued the client had dissipated £650,000 from gold and jewellery sales through mortgage repayments, property purchases, and debt settlements.

⚖️ Why This Matters
This judgement provides crucial guidance for costs practitioners on security for costs applications in Solicitors Act assessments. It clarifies that legitimate financial management—paying down mortgages, purchasing property, repaying loans—does not constitute putting assets beyond reach. The decision emphasises that solicitors cannot rely on adverse inferences without first utilising available procedural mechanisms to obtain evidence. The ruling also confirms that substantial compliance with payment orders and imminent assessment hearings are significant discretionary factors against ordering security.

🎯 What The Court Decided
Solicitors Act proceedings constitute a "claim" for CPR 25.26 purposes, permitting security for costs applications despite being initiated by the client
CPR 25.27(b)(vi) requires positive steps making enforcement difficult—mere conversion of liquid funds into enforceable property doesn't suffice
Paying off mortgages to create unencumbered property makes enforcement easier, not harder
The £215,000 loan repayment to Yorkshire Metal Recycling was legitimate given the company had funded earlier payments to the solicitors
The evidential burden rests on the applicant where the client doesn't claim impecuniosity
It wouldn't be just under CPR 25.27(a) to order security given 57% of fees already paid and assessment imminence

📚 Topics Covered
Security for costs in Solicitors Act proceedings
CPR 25.26 and CPR 25.27(b)(vi) asset dissipation test
Evidential burden in security applications
Mortgage repayments and property investments as enforceable assets
Payment on account compliance
Justice test under CPR 25.27(a)
Part 18 requests and specific disclosure obligations
Unless orders and payment compliance

👨‍⚖️ Judge
Costs Judge Nagalingam

💼 Useful For
Costs Lawyers | Costs Draftsmen | Solicitors | Litigation Solicitors | Civil Litigation Practitioners | Legal Costs Professionals

🔗 Links
📖 Read the full blog post: https://tmclegal.co.uk/security-costs...

⚖️ BAILII judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...

📞 Contact TMC Legal
For expert costs advice, detailed assessment representation, or security for costs applications:
☎️ 01628 526 236
✉️ [email protected]
🌐 www.tmclegal.co.uk

🔔 SUBSCRIBE for regular updates on costs law, civil litigation, and CPR developments

Related Cases
Keary (1995) - Inferences concerning financial position in security applications

#securityforcosts #SolicitorsAct1974 #CPR25 #AssetDissipation #detailedassessment #costslaw #legalcosts #CivilLitigation #paymentonaccount #UnlessOrders #SCCO #CostsJudge #uklaw #LitigationLaw #LegalPractice #costsdraftsman #costslawyer

Disclaimer: This video is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Copyright: © 2025 TMC Legal Limited