Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd: CA 1973

The court exercises a full discretion when ordering security for costs.
Where a plaintiff who is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction has no assets within it, he or she may still yet convince the court against ordering security for costs if he or she were able to show that the application was being used oppressively so as to stifle a genuine claim, and the Court ‘would also consider whether the company’s want of means has been brought about by any conduct by the defendants’.
Lord Denning MR set out some of the matters which the court might, in an appropriate case, take into account in deciding whether, and if so, how, to exercise its discretion: ‘Such as whether the company’s claim is bona fide and not a sham, and whether the company has a reasonably good prospect of success . . whether there is an admission by the defendants on the pleadings or elsewhere that money is due . . whether the application for security was being used oppressively – so as to try to stifle a genuine claim . . whether the company’s want of means has been brought about by any conduct by the defendants, such as delay in payment or delay in doing their part of the work.’

Lord Denning MR
[1973] QB 609, [1973] 2 All ER 273
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKeary 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 . .
CitedMG v AR FD 16-Nov-2021
Family Case: Costs Security depends on Case Merits
Application for security for costs in family cases.
Held: In contrast to civil cases generally, in a family case the merits of the application and the strength of the defence necessarily have to be carefully considered. It is only by . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.225881