In Kask v. Shimizu the plaintiff could not afford to deposit any sums of money as security for costs. An order for security for costs in such a case would have resulted in that party being unable to pursue with the action. Under those circumstances the judicious exercise of the court's discretion could result in no order being made. In this matter I am satisfied that an order for security for costs will not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing with this action.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.