Harcombe v Thorne

The plaintiffs in this case, Harcombe, sought security for costs from the defendants, Thorne, who opposed the application. The dispute came before the court, which granted the plaintiffs' application for security for costs but allowed the defendants partial success on the quantum of the security to be provided. The court was tasked with determining whether the costs order in the plaintiffs’ favour should be adjusted to account for the defendants' partial success and whether the costs should be fixed.

In assessing the appropriate costs order, the court considered the general principle that costs follow the event, which means that the unsuccessful party in a legal proceeding typically bears the costs of the successful party. However, the court also noted that the plaintiffs were substantially successful in their application for security for costs, despite the defendants achieving some success on the quantum issue. The court concluded that the costs order should reflect the plaintiffs’ substantial success but recognised the need to consider the defendants' partial success in setting the quantum of the security. Consequently, the court decided to fix the costs in a manner that appropriately reflected both parties' successes and failures in the proceedings.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of and incidental to the application, with the specific amounts to be determined in accordance with the details outlined in paragraphs [12] and [13] of the reasons for judgment. This decision highlights the court's approach to balancing the costs implications of partial success in security for costs applications.