Delay in bringing an application for security for costs is always a relevant discretionary factor, but its significance depends on the facts, particularly whether there is evidence of actual prejudice. Prejudice from delay, even substantial delay, generally cannot be presumed. Where the plaintiff fails to adduce evidence of prejudice despite being singularly positioned to do so, the court may draw an adverse inference. Delay may be addressed by limiting security to prospective costs rather than refusing the application entirely.
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.