Musst Holdings v Astra Asset Management: ATE Insurance, Security for Costs, and the Recovery Discount [2025] EWHC 689 (Ch)
Legal Case — 2025-03-20
Master Pester considers whether ATE insurance satisfies security for costs where the policy limit falls short of the approved budget, applying recovery discounts of 65% on incurred costs and 90% on budgeted costs, and ordering £75,000 to remain in court alongside the policy.
Background
Musst Holdings, a BVI company, brought a claim in the Business List against Astra Asset Management. Astra applied for security for costs on 24 January 2024. Musst obtained litigation insurance (the Policy) which it argued provided a complete answer to the application.
In an earlier reserved judgment ([2024] EWHC 2310 (Ch)), Master Pester rejected most of Astra's objections to the Policy. Two issues remained: the quantum of security taking into account the Policy, and what should happen to £180,000 held in court. That £180,000 represented part of an amount ordered to be paid by Astra to Musst in previous litigation between the parties, which Freedman J had ordered should stand as security for costs up to and including the costs and case management conference.
The Numbers
Following the CCMC in October 2024 and a further hearing in December 2024, Astra's total costs position was £1,421,981.80, comprising:
- Incurred costs (as at December 2024): £550,274
- Approved budgeted future costs: £871,706.80
The Policy limit had been increased to £1,245,000 - leaving a potential shortfall of approximately £177,000 on a pound-for-pound basis.
Musst's Argument: The Recovery Discount
Musst submitted that the shortfall was illusory. In practice, not all budgeted or incurred costs are recovered on detailed assessment. Musst's working hypothesis was:
- 65% recovery on incurred costs (approximately £357,500) - these had not been subject to budgeting scrutiny
- 90% recovery on budgeted costs (approximately £785,000)
On that basis, Musst calculated realistic recoverable costs of approximately £1,142,500 - comfortably within the Policy limit of £1,245,000. The £180,000 was Musst's money, held as a stop-gap measure up to the CCMC, and should now be released.
Astra's Argument
Astra contended that it was entitled to 100% of its approved budget (£1,421,981.50) as security. The revised Policy covered only approximately 87.5% of that figure.
The Court's Analysis
Neither party cited authorities bearing directly on the decision. Master Pester noted the White Book guidance that security is in the court's discretion, and that where a costs management order has been made, the approved budget will be "a strong guide" (citing Sarpd Oil International Ltd v Addax Energy SA [2016] EWCA Civ 120 at [52]).
Master Pester identified six factors:
1. No formal application needed. Astra complained that Musst had issued no formal application for release of the £180,000. The court rejected this objection given multiple hearings had addressed the issue and Freedman J's order originally provided for the money to be held only up to the CCMC.
2. Insolvency risk is real. Musst is a BVI company with no evidenced assets beyond the Policy and the court funds. Musst accepted for the purposes of the application that there was a risk of insolvency. Musst is also involved in separate litigation with Matrix Receivables Limited, creating further adverse costs exposure. The Policy and the court funds represent the only realistic recovery mechanism for Astra.
3. Balance of prejudice favours the defendant. Applying Pisante v Logothetis [2020] EWHC 3332 (Comm), the court noted that the prejudice is asymmetric. An under-secured applicant cannot recover the unsecured balance of costs at all. A claimant who is over-secured suffers only the cost of providing the security, or the excess amount.
4. No immediate need for the money. Musst did not evidence any immediate and pressing need for the £180,000, for example to pay ongoing legal fees.
5. Recovery discounts are imprecise. Cost budgeting is not an exact science. There may be further steps in the litigation not envisaged when budgets were prepared. The suggested 65% recovery rate on incurred costs "seems to me, if anything, to be on the low side."
6. Policy termination risk. There remains the possibility that the Policy could be terminated, and Astra would need to reapply for security. Astra suggested additional costs of up to £100,000 in that scenario. The court considered this an overestimate but could not entirely discount the possibility.
The Order
Taking all these factors into account, Master Pester ordered that £75,000 should remain in court as additional security for costs alongside the Policy. The balance of £105,000 was to be paid out to Musst.
Practical Takeaways
1. ATE insurance can satisfy security for costs - but gaps matter
The court accepted ATE insurance as a valid form of security in principle. However, where the policy limit does not match the full costs exposure, the court will scrutinise the shortfall and may require additional security.
2. Recovery discounts are a legitimate argument - but the court sets its own rate
Musst's approach of applying recovery discounts to incurred and budgeted costs is a useful tool for claimants arguing that a policy provides sufficient cover. However, the court will form its own view on the appropriate discount rate. The 65% recovery rate on incurred costs was Musst's submission, not the court's finding - Master Pester considered it potentially too low.
3. The balance of prejudice favours defendants
The asymmetric prejudice analysis from Pisante v Logothetis is significant. A defendant who is under-secured loses out entirely on the unprotected portion. A claimant who is over-secured faces only the cost of providing that security. This tilts the discretion towards maintaining or increasing security.
4. Costs budgets are not a guarantee
The judgment acknowledges that approved budgets are imprecise. Both sides used this imprecision to their advantage - Musst to argue for discounts, Astra to argue for full coverage. Budget figures are estimates, not entitlements.
5. Keep cash in court if you can
If funds are already held in court, there is a strong practical argument for keeping them there. The court was influenced by the fact that Musst showed no immediate need for the money, its involvement in other litigation (Matrix Receivables), and the risk of policy termination.
6. Context of the court funds matters
The £180,000 was not fresh security - it came from previous litigation between the same parties and was held as a stop-gap to the CCMC. Despite this, the court retained £75,000 as a cushion against identified risks.
Full Judgment
[Musst Holdings Ltd v Astra Asset Management UK Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 689 (Ch)](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2025/689.html)
Related Specialist Support
View all case law updates | Our services | Contact us