significant and unexplained delay in bringing the application for security
evidence of prejudice to the applicants
Quick Take
1Significant and unexplained delay in bringing an application for security for costs, coupled with actual prejudice to the opposing party caused by that delay (such as the dissipation of funds that could have been used to provide security), may be of sufficient moment to warrant refusal of the application notwithstanding the applicant company's established impecuniosity.
2A liquidator's firm funding litigation on a reimbursement basis without a commercial uplift is analogous to a solicitor acting on a conditional or 'no-win/no-fee' basis and is not to be regarded as a person standing behind the litigation whose assets should be taken into account in assessing stultification or the capacity to provide security.
3Where substantial costs have been incurred since the time when an application for security should have been brought, it is unreasonable to deny the existence of prejudice unless the plaintiff can prove exactly what it would have done had the application been brought earlier.
