Lagesen v Electric Lamps Regenerators Ltd [1914] ZAWLD 20 (28 July 1914)

Practice.-Security for claim in reconvention.-Application.-,Promptness .-Waiver.

Though it is desirable that an application by a defendant for security for a claim in reconvention should be made promptly, promptness is not essential (Oaten v. Bentwich and Li,chtenstein, 1903 T.H. 72, and Hollander v. Leo, 1909 T.H.127, not followed). The fact that a defendant did not demand security for a claim in reconvention at the same time that he demanded security for costs, Held, not to debar him from applying for the former security, in the absence of evidence that he· bad waived such right.