The Court approached an Application for security for costs in two steps. First, it undertook an evaluation of each of the Rule 4.22 factors. “The Court is … required to take into account the five factors itemised in rule 4.22.” With specific reference to Paragraph 4.22(e) (“…any other matters the Court considers appropriate”), Wittmann C.J. considered case law surrounding the counterclaim of the Defendant: specifically, how and in what situations the existence of a counterclaim affects the outcome of a security for costs application.  The Court stated:

It is neither possible, nor desirable, for the Court at this stage to determine which party’s case is stronger.

Second, the Court considered whether it was just and reasonable to grant the Application after it had taken all of the Rule 4.22 factors into account. The security for costs award was granted because, among other things, the Action involved a foreign plaintiff that did not call evidence with respect to its ability to pay a potential costs award against it.