Butler-Andrews and Andrews and Ors

In the proceedings before Dawe J, the dispute concerned an application for security for costs. The applicant, the wife, sought to resist an order for security for costs, while the Second and Fourth Respondents sought such an order.

The court was required to determine whether to exercise its discretion to order the wife to provide security for the costs of the Second and Fourth Respondents, and whether to grant a stay of proceedings pending compliance with any such order. The court considered various criteria, including the financial circumstances of the wife, the nature of the proceedings, and the potential difficulties in enforcing a costs order against the wife, who resided in a foreign jurisdiction.

Dawe J reasoned that the wife's non-residence in Australia presented a significant factor, potentially creating greater than usual difficulty in enforcing any costs order. The court also considered the nature of the proceedings, which were dependent on the court drawing inferences, and the risk that an order for security might stifle the proceedings. However, weighing these factors against the need to protect the respondents, the court found that an order for $20,000 security for costs was not oppressive and appropriately protected the Second and Fourth Respondents.

Consequently, Dawe J concluded that an order for security for costs should be made and that a stay of proceedings was also appropriate.