There was evidence that the plaintiff was no longer trading, and that it had previously received support from another company which was a creditor of the plaintiff company and therefore had an interest in the plaintiff’s claim continuing. The court considered an application for security for costs.
Held: Before the court refuses to order security on the ground that it would unfairly stifle a valid claim, the court must be satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is probable that the claim would be stifled if an order was made.
Citations:
[1990] BCLC 263
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.225886