Dass v Beggs [2014] EWHC 164 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 26 (Feb)
CPR 25.13(2)(g) provided that security might be ordered by the court if it was satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it was just to make such an order where “the claimant had taken steps in relation to his assets that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against him”. The appropriate analysis in cases concerning applications under CPR 25.13(2)(g) was, first, to ascertain whether the gateway condition had been satisfied and if so, but only then, to consider whether, in all the circumstances, it would be just to make an order. It was also legitimate for the court to abstain from adjudicating on the gateway under CPR 25.13(2)(g) if it had taken the view that, in any event, the evaluation of all the circumstances would lead it to refuse the order as a matter of discretion. It was settled law that it was sufficient to pass through the gateway under CPR 25.13(2)(g) that the defendant had identified a step taken by the claimant which had the effect
