That the statute required it to be likely that a company might find it difficult to pay costs before allowing a requirement for security for costs, indicated that an order may be expected to cause difficulty. However the court will not allow an impoverished company to use its inability to pay costs as a weapon against a more prosperous company.
References:  1 WLR 899,  3 All ER 531
Judges: Megarry V-C
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Keary Developments v Tarmac Constructions CA 1995
The court set out the principles to be applied by the court upon an application for security for costs.
1. The court has a complete discretion whether to order security, and accordingly it will act in the light of all the relevant . .
( 3 All ER 534)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.225883