An inadequately explained delay of approximately ten months in seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory decision on security for costs is sufficient of itself to warrant refusal of an extension of time. Where an application for security for costs is refused, any appeal must be brought promptly. An insolvent company's inability to fund litigation does not automatically result in an order for security; the question remains discretionary and the refusal of security will not be disturbed on appeal absent House v The King error.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.