The Court ordered security for costs of $90,000 against an impecunious corporate plaintiff in franchise litigation, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish on the evidence either that the third defendant's conduct caused its impecuniosity or that an order for security would stultify the proceedings. The sole director's evidence of inability to fund the litigation was found inadequate where he provided no details of his financial position, assets, or specific attempts to obtain funding, and no personal undertaking to meet costs was offered. The Court adopted a broad-brush approach to quantum at an early stage, setting security below the defendant's estimate but well above the plaintiff's, with liberty to apply for an increase.
The full text is available to signed-in members.