When may a court not make an order for costs against a plaintiff?

The situation described in the correct answer pertains to the principle of costs in civil litigation, particularly regarding loser's costs rules. When a court considers whether to make an order for costs against a party, it often takes into account the financial situation of that party.

In the case where the plaintiff is a natural person and impecunious, meaning they are unable to pay their debts, the court has discretion not to impose costs against them. This can be justified on the basis of fairness and access to justice; if a plaintiff cannot afford to pay costs, compelling them to do so could effectively deny them the ability to pursue their legal claim. Courts often consider the principle that individuals should not be deterred from bringing legitimate claims due to the fear of substantial cost liabilities, especially when they are in a financially precarious position.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff is a corporation, this does not automatically protect it from cost orders, as corporations are expected to manage their financial resources and can generally absorb costs more easily than individuals. Financial instability alone, without additional context about the individual's inability to cover costs, does not establish a blanket protection. Finally, the mere act of initiating proceedings does not provide a basis for avoiding costs; courts can impose costs on a party