1 By an order of court made on 2 June 1989, the second plaintiff was ordered to provide security for costs in the sum of $3,000, and pursuant to the order the security was provided. The action then progressed further, and on 18 January 1990 the defendant took out an application by SIC 293/90 for an order that the security for the defendants` costs of this action be increased to a sum of $10,000. The application was heard before the senior assistant registrar, who ordered further security in the sum of $6,000 be provided by the second plaintiff, and that amount was assessed up to the stage of summons for directions. Against that order this appeal was brought I found that the appeal had no merit and I dismissed it with costs.

2 The only question raised in the application was whether or not the amount of security furnished by the second plaintiff pursuant to the order of 2 June 1989 should be increased. Since the order was made, voluminous cause papers have been delivered and filed and a lot of work appeared to have been generated. From a cursory perusal of the files, it appears to me that a lot more work would have to be carried out before the summons-for-directions is taken out. Clearly, the amount of $3,000 as security for costs was wholly inadequate, and ought to be increased, and the amount determined by the learned senior assistant registrar is eminently reasonable. Before me, counsel for the second plaintiff had not shown any reason why the amount should not be increased.

3 However, counsel argued that, on principle, security for costs ought not to have been ordered in this case, because the first plaintiff is a Singaporean and is resident in Singapore, and the second plaintiff, though not a Singaporean, is a permanent resident here. He relied on the general rule that where there are more than one plaintiff and one or more of them are resident within the jurisdiction the court would not order security to be given by the co-plaintiff who is resident outside the jurisdiction. He relied on the case of D`Hormusgee v Grey (1882) 10 QBD 13. In that case, an action was brought by two plaintiffs, one of whom was resident abroad. The statement of claim alleged a contract by the defendant with the plaintiffs jointly, and in the alternative, with each of the plaintiffs separately. It was held that as one of the plaintiffs was resident within the jurisdiction, the plaintiff resident abroad could not be ordered to give security for costs. It appears that the case was decided on the basis of joinder of parties under O 16 r 1 of the Supreme Court Rules then in force and not under any particular rule governing security for costs to be furnished by a plaintiff, who is ordinarily not resident within the jurisdiction.

4 That case was considered in Slazengers Ltd v Seaspeed Ferries International Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1197 and on appeal in Slazengers Ltd & Ors v Seaspeed Ferries International Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 221. In that case, three actions were instituted against the defendants, the owners of the `Seaspeed Dora`, a roll-on roll-off vessel. The actions arose out of the capsizing of the vessel at Jeddah and were subsequently consolidated. Altogether, 116 plaintiffs claimed against the defendants for damages, and they claimed as owners of the goods, which were loaded on the vessel and which were lost, or as consignees or endorsees of the bills of lading. Of that total, 50 or 51 were resident outside the jurisdiction, and they were predominantly the consignees of the various consignments of cargo and the shippers of most of the consignments loaded at Antwerp and Rotterdam. It was common ground that all the cargo interests were insured and the action was brought in the names of the plaintiffs by the underwriters claiming by subrogation, and many of the underwriters were resident within the United Kingdom; but they were not the parties in the action. The defendants sought an order for security for costs against the foreign plaintiffs. Webster J, who heard the application, examined in depth the rule then found in note 23/1-3/3 of The Supreme Court Practice 1985 : `No order will be made if there are co-plaintiffs resident in England` and the authorities in support, including D`Hormusgee , and held, inter alia, that that was not a rule of law but of practice. He allowed the application and ordered the foreign plaintiffs to provide security in the sum based on an aliquot share of the costs attributable to the number of foreign plaintiffs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with his views on the rule of practice but disagreed with his determination that the foreign plaintiffs should provide security for costs as o rdered. Dillon LJ held, inter alia, that O 23 r 1 conferred on the court a very wide discretion on ordering security for costs. He said, at p 224:

5 Dillon LJ later went on to consider the question whether security should be ordered in that case, and he said, at p 226:

6 Bingham LJ, the other member of the court, at the commencement of his judgment quoted, at p 226, the following passage of the judgment of Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson VC in Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 420 at p 422:

7 And continued:

8 Bingham LJ then considered the case before the court and held that there were ample funds available to satisfy any order for costs awarded to the defendant. He said, at p 228:

9 Order 23 r 1 of our Rules of Supreme Court 1970 is identical with O 23 r 1 referred to in Slazengers and, in so far as relevant provides:

10 On the basis of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Slazengers Ltd & Ors v Seaspeed Ferries International Ltd , the court has under O 23 r 1(1) jurisdiction at its discretion to order security for costs to be furnished by a foreign plaintiff even where there are co-plaintiffs resident within the jurisdiction. Each case falling within r 1(1) must be considered and decided on its own facts.

11 I now turn to the facts in the present case. The first plaintiff is a Singaporean and is resident in Singapore. But, at the date of the hearing of the application, a bankruptcy notice had been taken out against her, and the service of bankruptcy notice on her had not been successful. From the affidavit of service produced, it appears that there had been difficulties in effecting service of the bankruptcy notice on her. As for the second plaintiff, at that time two bankruptcy notices had been taken out against him, and there were also difficulties in effecting service of process on him at the address at which he said he was residing. He claimed that he was granted the status of a permanent resident in Singapore; that is by no means conclusive or even convincing. The question is whether he is ordinarily resident in Singapore. On the material before me, I am not satisfied he is. Furthermore, from the way counsel for the second plaintiff argued the appeal before me, and in particular, in relying on the rule of practice as laid down in D`Hormusgee , he was, by implication, conceding that the second plaintiff was not (at that time) ordinarily resident in Singapore.

12 For the reasons I have given, I entirely agree with the decision of the learned senior assistant register and the increase in the amount of security was amply justified.

13 Appeal dismissed.