Search
The TCC has dismissed the Gambling Commission and Interested Party’s application for security for their costs in The New Lottery Company Limited and Northern & Shell PLC v The Gambling Commission litigation (one of the Top 20 cases of 2025). The court ruled that the threshold condition for the Gambling Commission seeking security for its costs under CPR r.25.26 had not been met.
The Interested Party, Allwyn’s, application for security for their costs was legally novel, neither party having been able to identify a case where an Interested Party to a procurement claim had been awarded security for its costs. That application was also refused. The court ruled that “In all the circumstances, I can see nothing in the Rules or in the authorities to which I have been referred to support the proposition that it would be proper for me simply to ignore the longstanding practice of the court and make an order for security for costs in favour of Allwyn. Although in theory an inherent jurisdiction exists…it is not unfettered and there is nothing in the Rules which provides the court with power to make such an order. I reject Allwyn’s case that the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(p) have that effect. I respectfully adopt the position taken by the Court of Appeal in CT Bowring that, if there is to be an expansion of the Rules to cover applications for security for costs by interested parties, that must be a matter for the Rules Committee or for Parliament.”
Khatija Hafesji acted for The New Lottery Company Limited and Northern & Shell Plc (the Claimants), led by Sa’ad Hossian KC of One Essex Court. The Judgment can be found here.