The offer of a personal guarantee by an impecunious shareholder standing behind an impecunious corporate plaintiff is a relevant factor in the exercise of the discretion whether to order security for costs under s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), but it is not necessarily decisive and does not create a predisposition against ordering security. A respondent to a security for costs application has no free-standing duty to make full financial disclosure to its opponent; if the evidence is insufficient to discharge the onus, the claim should fail. The question whether the 'Harpur principle' — that the statutory purpose is satisfied once those behind the company bring their own assets into play — is correct as a general proposition remains unresolved in Queensland.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 15 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.