1A claim of privilege against self-incrimination by a defendant does not operate as a disentitling factor for that defendant's application for security for costs, nor does it of itself warrant a reduction in the quantum of security, as such a position would be at odds with the protection of the privilege.
2Where a plaintiff insists on general disclosure rather than agreeing to disclosure by categories, the plaintiff cannot then complain about the scope of the disclosure task or contend that the resulting costs estimate is excessive for the purposes of quantifying security for costs.
3While the public interest dimension of proceedings (here, the integrity of securities markets and insider trading prohibitions) is a relevant discretionary consideration under r 672(i) UCPR, where the plaintiff's proceeding seeks monetary relief rather than an altruistic outcome, and significant discounts have already been applied to the costs estimate, no further public interest reduction is warranted.
