Hurst-Meyers v Hoy (No 2)

In *Hurst-Meyers v Hoy (No 2)*, Loukas-Karlsson J of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered an application for security for costs. The application was brought by the respondent, Hoy, against the appellants, Hurst-Meyers, who were unrepresented in the proceedings. The core of the dispute concerned the appropriate amount of security to be ordered.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to order security for costs against the unrepresented appellants, and if so, what the quantum of that security should be. The Court was required to balance the respondent's right to be protected from incurring costs without recourse against the appellants' right to access justice, particularly given their unrepresented status.

Loukas-Karlsson J reasoned that while the appellants' unrepresented status was a factor to be considered, it did not automatically preclude an order for security for costs. The Court applied the principles established in *Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd* (1985) 2 NSWLR 685, which outline the considerations for ordering security for costs, including the likelihood of the applicant being able to pay the costs of the respondent if unsuccessful. The Court found that there was a sufficient risk that the appellants would be unable to pay the respondent's costs, justifying an order for security. The amount of security was determined by assessing the likely costs the respondent would incur.

The Court ordered that the appellants provide security for the respondent's costs in the sum of $15,000.