Davey v Herbst (No 2)

In *Davey v Herbst (No 2)*, Refshauge J of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered an application for security for costs. The application was brought by the defendant, Mr Herbst, against the plaintiff, Ms Davey, in proceedings that had already been ongoing for some time.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it should exercise its discretion to order the plaintiff to provide security for the defendant's costs of the litigation. This required the Court to consider the relevant legislative provisions and the principles governing the exercise of such discretion, particularly in circumstances where the plaintiff was a company.

Refshauge J's reasoning focused on the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's financial position and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if an order for security for costs were made. The Court considered the established legal principles that govern applications for security for costs, including the need to balance the defendant's right to be protected from incurring costs without recourse against the plaintiff's right to pursue their claim. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the threshold for ordering security for costs had not been met in this instance.

Consequently, the application for security for costs was dismissed.