Liu v Sha [2022] NSWCA 192

Liu v Sha [2022] NSWCA 192

Security for costs was ordered because special circumstances were established by the appellant's inferred impecuniosity and the very weak prospects of the two central appeal grounds, there was no evidence that an order would likely stultify the appeal, and the respondent should not be denied security on the basis of unsupported assertions about his resources. A broad-brush assessment of likely recoverable costs justified security of $20,000 rather than the $35,000 sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal; Motion for Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part; appeal stayed until security is provided.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'special Circumstances' 'impecuniosity' 'prospects of Success' 'stultification of Appeal' 'quantum of Security']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appeals'] ['security for Costs' 'special Circumstances' 'impecuniosity' 'prospects of Success' 'stultification of Appeal' 'quantum of Security']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal; Motion for Security for Costs / Application for Security for Costs in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were special circumstances within the meaning of r 51.50.' "Whether the Court's discretion to grant security should be exercised." 'The quantum of any security for costs.' 'The costs of the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because special circumstances were established by the appellant's inferred impecuniosity and the very weak prospects of the two central appeal grounds, there was no evidence that an order would likely stultify the appeal, and the respondent should not be denied security on the basis of unsupported assertions about his resources. A broad-brush assessment of likely recoverable costs justified security of $20,000 rather than the $35,000 sought.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part; appeal stayed until security is provided.

Orders

  • ["The appellant to provide within 14 days security in the sum of $20,000 for the respondent's costs of the appeal by payment of that amount into Court." 'The appeal be stayed until the appellant has complied with order 1 above.' "The appellant to pay 60% of the respondent's costs of the motion filed on 8 August 2022."]