The Court ordered further security of $150,000 by way of a London insurer's indemnity rather than the $300,000 cash sought by the defendant, finding that the defendant's six-month delay in bringing its second security application, its use of the security process to blockade all further progress in the litigation, and its failure to comply with agreed timetables weighed strongly against the full order sought. The Court emphasised that successive tranche-based security applications that create repeated stalemates are inconsistent with UCPR r 5 objectives and that the right to seek security must be exercised in circumstances involving the least oppression, applying [name withheld] v [name withheld] and [name withheld] v Stanton Partners. The strength of the plaintiff's claims for work performed months before administration, combined with the defendant's failure to undertake the contractual reconciliation process and its reliance on set-off claims outside the subcontract framework, were treated as a modest factor against ordering security.
The full text is available to signed-in members.