Junioring Frank Hicks SC, Michael Swanson successfully defends his client against security for costs in a representative proceedings. Justice Ball was asked to considered whether security for costs should be awarded against the lead applicant in a representative proceedings arising out of a residential construction development. The lead applicant and group members did not have the benefit of a litigation funder. The Court declined to make an order for security for costs as it would not have made one against the lead applicant or each of the group members if they had brought proceedings individually. The decision considers the relevance of UCPR 42.21 to representative proceedings and the role of litigation funders when ordering security for costs.

Read the full judgement here.