The claimant, a Hong Kong company which was not obliged to file financial statements, declined the defendants’ request for information as to its finances and status. The defendants, contending that there was reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay their costs if ordered to do so, applied for security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.13(c). The claimant relied on a decision of a High Court judge to contend that no inference should be drawn from its refusal to provide financial information. The master, holding that he was not bound to follow the decision of the High Court judge, concluded that an inference could be drawn from the claimant’s failure to provide information on its financial position and ordered that the claimant give security for the defendants’ costs.
On the claimant’s appeal—
Held, appeal dismissed. Irrespective of the doctrine of precedent issue, in the circumstances there was reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay the defendants’ costs. Accordingly, the condition in CPR r 25.13(c) for an order for security for costs was satisfied (paras 29, 31).
Per curiam. A decision of a High Court judge in terms of its clear ratio is binding on a master, absent either a conflicting decision at the same level or of superior courts (paras 61–67).
Romie Tager QC and Henry Webb (instructed by Macfarlanes llp) for the claimant.
Alexander Cook (instructed by Candey Ltd) for the defendants.