The Court held that where a counterclaim goes beyond being purely defensive of the plaintiff's claim and requires extensive expert evidence disproportionate to the parties' financial positions, security for costs may be ordered but limited to disbursements for expert evidence rather than full party-and-party costs. The Court dismissed the defendants' cross-application for security against the plaintiffs, finding that evidence of a solvent operating business with declining but positive cash reserves did not meet the threshold of credible testimony giving reason to believe inability to pay costs. The Court also held that where a stayed counterclaim shares the same broad factual matrix as the claim, it should be dismissed with a deadline rather than left indefinitely stayed, to avoid the injustice of requiring defendants to the counterclaim to face two trials on overlapping facts.
The full text is available to signed-in members.