Which of the following circumstances can lead a court to order security for costs?

A court may order security for costs primarily to ensure that a defendant is protected against the risk of incurring costs associated with defending a claim that may ultimately be unsuccessful. When a plaintiff resides outside Australia, there can be a concern regarding the enforceability of cost orders against them if the case does not go in their favor. This is a significant basis for the court to require security, as it mitigates the risk that the defendant may not be able to recover costs if they are unsuccessful in the proceedings.

The residence of the plaintiff outside Australia raises potential issues with jurisdiction and enforceability, thus justifying the imposition of security for costs to ensure that any costs incurred by the defendant can be recovered, should the need arise. This is particularly relevant when the plaintiff may be perceived as less likely to pay such costs due to their physical absence from the jurisdiction.

In contrast, a financially secure plaintiff, or one associated with a large company, diminishes the concern regarding costs recovery, making security generally unnecessary. Similarly, if a defendant has admitted liability, the likelihood of incurring unrecoverable costs is reduced, as the ultimate outcome may be favorable to the plaintiff. Lastly, the pursuit of multiple costs orders by the defendant does not inherently justify security for costs;