Appeal dismissed; security via freezing claims rejected due to lack of enforceable claims and insufficient interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the district court's order denying security for a claim. The appellant argued that a freeze on the defendant's claims was necessary to prevent set-off and ensure the validity of a declaratory action, citing projected future revenues. The court held that such security requires up-to-date, enforceable claims subject to set-off, which were absent, and that the appellant's financial plan only showed a hope rather than an expectation of such claims. Consequently, the requested security measure was deemed unnecessary and would improperly burden the defendant without providing adequate protection.