[2021] NZEmpC 13 Edwards v Recreational Services Ltd [pdf, 206 KB]
...because he did not have that kind of money. He is in receipt of an unemployment benefit and could make weekly payments to satisfy an adverse future costs order, but not a lump sum. He also observed that Recreational Services is a large and well-resourced company with branches throughout New Zealand. He maintained that his claim is meritorious, and that any order for security for costs would become an impediment to him accessing justice because of his present financial position....