Where both parties to an appeal are impecunious, the stifling effect of a security for costs order on the appellant does not preclude the order where the appeal has poor prospects of success, the notice of appeal is defective, and the respondent would suffer grave injustice from being unable to recover costs. The fact that a plaintiff is financially unable to provide security does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the order will stultify the claim, nor to the automatic refusal of an order.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 14 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 14 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.