The Court dismissed an application for security for costs brought under the inherent jurisdiction against an individual plaintiff resident within the jurisdiction who was not impecunious. The Court held that a single instance of delayed compliance with a prior costs order — where the plaintiff had ample funds throughout the period of non-compliance — did not support the inference that the plaintiff would be unwilling to satisfy future costs orders, and that the prospect of inconvenience or delay in enforcement alone was insufficient to make an order for security necessary in the interests of justice. The Court acknowledged that unwillingness to pay costs may be relevant where accompanied by additional circumstances (such as corporate opacity or a prior loss at trial), but on the facts this was not an appropriate case for security.
The full text is available to signed-in members.