The mere possibility (as opposed to probability) that an adverse costs order might be recoverable from a company in liquidation's assets, including under s 556(1)(a) priority, does not displace the prima facie satisfaction of the threshold test for security for costs established by the fact of liquidation. A party resisting security on stultification grounds must adduce evidence of the means of those standing behind the company and whether it is reasonable to expect them to provide security; bare assertions about the character of investors are insufficient.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.