I note as well that in the oft‑quoted passage from para. 27 of Han v. Cho, Madam Justice Dillon gives examples of special circumstances that could justify an order for security for costs: a plaintiff who has a weak claim or has failed to pay costs before or refused to follow a court order for payment of maintenance. The use of the word failed and the word refused suggests that both wilful and unintentional non‑compliance with orders may support requiring security for costs.
"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.