Karlsson v Westmoreland: security for costs against a foreign-resident claimant
Email from the supervising partner
Scenario scenario-005 — Legal Research
From: Senior Partner To: Trainee Subject: Karlsson v Westmoreland — security for costs research We act for the defendant Westmoreland Engineering plc. The claimant Mr Lars Karlsson is a Norwegian national resident in Bergen. Norway is not in the EU. He has brought a claim for approximately £450,000 alleging breach of a 2024 consultancy contract. We have no evidence that Mr Karlsson has any assets in the UK. We estimate our trial costs at approximately £180,000. Please research: (1) the basis on which security for costs may be ordered against a claimant resident outside the UK (post-Brexit position); (2) the factors the court will weigh in deciding whether to make an order and at what level; (3) the practical procedure and timing. You do NOT need to consider ADR strategy, third-party funding, or without-prejudice negotiation. Sources are attached.
What a strong answer looks like
Model answer outline (public summary)
- Identify the correct CPR ground: CPR r.25.27(2)(a) — claimant resident outside the UK, not resident in a Hague Convention state.
- Apply Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait: security must be calibrated to the real-world additional enforcement burden in Norway, not the full defendant costs estimate.
- Set out the discretionary factors the court weighs: likelihood of success, claimant's ability to pay, conduct of the parties, stage of proceedings.
- Identify and ignore the red-herring sources (e.g. the Part 36 extracts) — the security-for-costs question does not require Part 36 analysis.
- Confirm procedure: application on notice using Form N244, supported by a witness statement; typically heard at a CMC or separate interim hearing.
- Translate the conclusion into actionable advice: on these facts the condition under r.25.27(2)(a) is satisfied; the court is likely to exercise discretion given no UK enforcement route, but quantum will be limited to the additional enforcement cost, not the full £180,000.
Illustrative excerpt. Scenario details are practice material only. The live grader presents the full brief and grades your response against the SRA Performance Indicators.
The criteria the Legal Research station is marked against.
The Legal Research station tests whether you can identify the correct sources from a mixed bundle (including red herrings), apply the law to the specific facts, and deliver a decision-useful research note to the supervising partner.
Identify and use relevant sources and information
Selects relevant information from primary and secondary sources provided; distinguishes between relevant and irrelevant sources (red herrings); uses findings to support the answer.
Provide advice which is client-focused and addresses the client's problem
Demonstrates understanding of the client's problem from the client's perspective, including commercial considerations and the client's priorities.
Use clear, precise, concise and acceptable language
Conveys facts and information effectively using correct legal terminology where necessary; avoids unnecessary jargon; suitable length and density for a partner-facing research note.
Apply the law correctly to the client's situation
Identifies the relevant legal principles and applies them correctly to the specific facts of the client's case.
Apply the law comprehensively, identifying any ethical and professional conduct issues
Legal analysis is sufficiently detailed; draws on multiple sources; recognises ethical issues and exercises appropriate judgment where relevant.
Performance Indicators quoted verbatim from the SRA’s published SQE2 Assessment Specification. Kellys SQE Examiner grades each attempt against these criteria, indicator by indicator.
Practise Dispute Resolution against the real Performance Indicators.
Try the live grader on this scenario free. Your response is graded against the SRA Performance Indicators — indicator by indicator, in under a minute.
Kellys SQE Examiner is exam-preparation practice software, not legal advice and not the SRA. Read the AI disclaimer for the full boundaries.