An impecunious natural person seeking to resist a security for costs order on the basis it will stifle an appeal should expressly depose to that fact rather than relying on inference from insolvency alone. The principles in Botsman v Bolitho regarding the need for evidence that an order would stifle proceedings are distinguishable where the applicant is a natural person rather than an insolvent corporation or class action representative. On a security for costs application before the hearing of a leave application, the Court adopts a broad brush approach to assessing the merits and is careful not to express a considered view on whether leave should be granted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.