Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Centre v Lynch (No 2)

The case of Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Centre v Lynch (No 2) involved an application for a maximum costs order and security for costs within the context of human rights litigation. The applicants, Shurat HaDin and others, sought to limit the respondent's ability to incur costs and to secure certain assets within Australia to ensure that costs could be met. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the applicants' pleadings, specifically in relation to alleged boycott calls, and whether there was a need for further clarification in distinguishing between the acts and their alleged purposes or effects.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants had adequately stated the material facts upon which they relied and whether the respondents were entitled to security for costs under specific circumstances. The court also considered whether an undertaking from one of the applicants, Mr Andrew Hamilton, regarding his Australian property would be sufficient to meet the requirement for security for costs. The court had to balance the applicants' right to pursue their claims with the respondent's right to protection from excessive costs.

The court ruled that the applicants' statement of claim was ill-considered and struck out certain paragraphs, allowing the applicants to replead within a specified timeframe. The court also refused to order security for costs if Mr Hamilton provided the required undertaking, but left the door open to order security if the undertaking was not provided. The court found that the applicants had sufficient notice of the defects in their pleadings and that the overall success in the interlocutory applications was evenly balanced. Consequently, no costs order was made in relation to the interlocutory applications, but the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs for the application to strike out the statement of claim. The costs could be taxed immediately based on relevant authorities.