The burden of proving that an order for security for costs will stultify proceedings lies on the party resisting the order, and is not discharged merely by showing the company's impecuniosity — evidence about the financial capacity of persons standing behind the company is required. A defensive cross-claim that merely asserts the consequence of defences raised in the primary proceedings will generally not attract an order for security for costs against the cross-claimant, particularly where costs solely referable to the cross-claim cannot be rationally apportioned. Changes in corporate ownership structure, without more, do not support an inference of risk of asset dissipation sufficient to ground an asset preservation order.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.