The Court ordered a corporate cross-claimant to provide security for costs of $35,932.75 where the cross-claimant was impecunious, the cross-claim had limited overlap with the statement of claim (and was therefore characterised as 'offensive' rather than 'defensive'), the cross-claim had limited prospects of success due to the wrong entity being the claimant, and a deed of indemnity from a related company was insufficient to mitigate the risk of non-payment because no evidence of that company's financial capacity was adduced. The Court also held that where a cross-claim is pursued for the benefit of a related entity that actually operates the relevant business, that supports the making of a security order.
The full text is available to signed-in members.