Where a party seeking security for costs adduces evidence that the applicant owns real property unencumbered by any registered interest, the party seeking security bears the onus of establishing that the value of the property or the applicant's interest in it would be insufficient to meet a costs order. An inference of impecuniosity from the applicant's silence or refusal to disclose financial details is not warranted where the evidence establishes ownership of real property and the silence is more likely attributable to a desire to protect the asset. Proposed grounds of appeal that are reasonably arguable and may raise issues of general application tell against an order for security.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.