An impecunious natural person plaintiff opposing security for costs must file affidavit evidence establishing that impecuniosity was caused by the defendant's conduct and that the order would stultify proceedings; unsworn witness statements and generalised assertions are insufficient. Delay and repeated non-compliance with court directions, combined with impecuniosity and large future costs to the defendant, may constitute a sufficiently strong case to order a stay conditional on security even against a natural person. The Philips Electronics 'strong case' or 'exceptional case' test for ordering a stay conditional on security under s 67 CPA likely continues to apply notwithstanding UCPR r 42.21(4).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.