This case is notable as it was the first time the High Court awarded security for costs in a matter concerning a challenge to a proposed restructuring plan. Applications for security for costs in connection with Part 26 schemes and Part 26A plans are rare. Nothing in this judgment suggested that was likely to change. While observing that the court's exercise of discretion in this case was closely linked to the facts of the matter, it should be noted that the court indicated that, although the judgment might nevertheless encourage dissenting creditors in other contested restructuring plan proceedings to make applications for security for costs (which could end up in potential delays or in disruptions to the process), the plan before the court was a continuation of prior adversarial litigation. Whilst this may be a feature of some schemes and plans, it was suggested that this would be rare. No floodgate was opened by this decision.

Play

Consort Healthcare (Tameside) plc (the Company) was a special purpose vehicle which provided services to the Tameside And Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust. This was done under the terms of a 'Project Agreement' entered into in 2007, under a private finance initiative. The Trust was required to redevelop an existing hospital site and then provide services including estate maintenance, security and a help desk.

A dispute arose between the Company and the Trust. This went to adjudication, and ultimately resulted in a significant award which was made against the Company in favour of the Trust. The Company's view was that the adjudication award, together with the implications for the level of service that it would have to provide in future, made its business unviable. To avoid this, it proposed a restructuring plan under Pt 26A Companies Act 2006 in order to compromise the claims which had been made against it, and to vary its obligations under the Project Agreement. The Company's view was that without the benefit of a restructuring plan, it would have to go into administration.

A restructuring plan was proposed, which involved three creditors. The first two of these supported the plan, but the third opposed it. These were:

• a) Consort Healthcare (Tameside) Intermediate Limited, which was a group company holding subordinated debt of the Company; 
•  b) Ambac Assurance UK Limited, which was a guarantor of senior debt issued by the Company;
• c) the Trust.