23 Nov 2018
Registrar's decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is upheld because the appellant's proceedings lack merit (one struck out as incoherent and abusive; the other a procedural order unlikely to be overturned) and therefore a solvent appellant would not reasonably prosecute the appeal, so security should not be dispensed with.
21 May 2015
The Deputy Registrar correctly refused to dispense with security because the appellants failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or exceptional public interest, had unpaid costs, and the appeal had low prospects of success given the High Court's findings and the Reekie test; accordingly security of $5,880 was required.
9 Jun 2014
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal raised no question of public or general importance and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice: the applicant was capable of providing the $5,880 security because he had received an $8,001 ACC payment, and the alleged misconduct of a partner was not relevant to the present proceedings and did not justify disqualification of counsel.
5 Oct 2012
Registrar's refusal to waive security for costs was upheld because the appellant failed to demonstrate persuasive financial hardship and no exceptional circumstances were shown; impecuniosity alone is insufficient to justify waiver and security is required to protect the respondent from potential costs; accordingly security of $5,880 was ordered payable by 2 November 2012.
8 Nov 2011
The review is dismissed and security is fixed at $2,780 because the appeal has little prospect of success, raises no significant public interest to justify waiver, and the appellant's financial position warrants a half reduction of the normal security amount.