A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia the Court gave a lot of weight to the existence of litigation funding, in ordering security for costs.
On 11 March 2016 the Supreme Court of Victoria held that a purchaser's notice of termination was ineffective because it was given to a real estate agent. The Court decided that the estate agent’s role was confined to a marketing and sales mandate, with the consequence that the agent did not have the authority to receive a notice of termination. The Court’s analysis considered the scope of the estate agent’s ostensible authority, implied authority and authority under the Sale of Land Act 1962. There may of course be a different result in other circumstances, for example if the evidence shows that a vendor makes it clear that the estate agent has a much broader role than the Court identified here.
During the trial of a class action a plaintiff was ordered to provide security for costs, at pain of the proceeding being stayed. The case settled not long after. In another case, a delay in an application for security for costs did not prevent it being ordered, however the Court adjusted the period of costs secured.