An undertaking from an impecunious director of an impecunious company is not an automatic answer to a security for costs application, whether under UCPR r 42.21 or Corporations Act s 1335. A person who has accepted the benefits of incorporation and limited liability should generally accept its burdens, including the risk of a security for costs order. To resist security on stultification grounds, the plaintiff must explain how the litigation has been funded, ensure all persons standing behind the company disclose their financial positions, and provide evidence (not mere assertion) that the litigation would be abandoned if security were ordered. On quantum, while a broad brush approach is permissible, there must be some evidentiary basis from which to estimate costs — the court will not speculate about costs of claims not yet assessed by a costs expert.
The full text is available to signed-in members.