Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors

The court may order security for costs after judgment, including security for future detailed assessment costs, provided the application is made promptly and the order has practical utility.

Where a successful defendant seeks an interim payment on account after trial, that relief will ordinarily be treated as an alternative to additional security for costs. A defendant who seeks both, or wishes to reserve the right to seek both, should say so at the consequentials hearing. Silence may amount to an election, and a later application may be refused on Henderson v Henderson grounds.

The claimants challenged the jurisdiction of the English court. The court dismissed the claims against Domidias for want of a serious issue to be tried and dismissed the claims against Mr Severilov because England was not the proper forum. Both defendants obtained costs orders and interim payments on account.

After the judgment, the claimants’ application to reopen permission to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal: [2026] EWCA Civ 516. Domidias and Mr Severilov then applied for further security for costs, including security for earlier work, post-judgment applications and detailed assessment proceedings. The central issues were whether the applications were too late and whether security should be ordered despite earlier interim payments.

1. Jurisdiction and timing. CPR 25.26 and CPR 25.27 do not expressly confine security for costs to the period before trial. Further security may be ordered after judgment where circumstances have materially changed, and security may cover future detailed assessment costs or other post-trial costs. Applications must nevertheless be made promptly once the facts justifying them are known.
2. Additional security and interim payments. The court treated an interim payment on account and additional security as ordinarily alternative forms of relief. A successful defendant seeking both, or wishing to reserve the possibility of later seeking security, should raise the matter at the consequentials hearing. If the defendant seeks only an interim payment and remains silent about additional security, the court may treat that silence as an election. A later application may then be refused on Henderson v Henderson grounds.
3. Earlier costs. Domidias’s application for additional security for the jurisdiction challenge was refused. Although there had been material changes, Domidias had obtained an interim payment without reserving a right to seek further security. The same reasoning defeated applications concerning earlier freezing-order and funding-disclosure applications. The application for other work also failed for lack of evidence and because the work was not shown to be separate.
4. Detailed assessment. The applications for security for future detailed assessment costs were timely because assessment had only recently become necessary. The court granted security of £80,000 to Domidias and £110,000 to Mr Severilov, without dividing the sums into tranches. The order gave liberty to apply if the security was not provided.

Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal was refused by Males LJ on 3 June 2025. The application to reopen permission under CPR 52.30 was dismissed after an oral hearing, by judgment dated 30 April 2026: [2026] EWCA Civ 516.

High Court (Commercial Court): The present application for further security for costs was granted in part.