26 Jun 2023
Application to dispense with security for costs dismissed. Although the appellant is impecunious, she failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or an arguable appeal; the appellant's prolonged delays and abusive litigation conduct have caused disproportionate costs to the respondent, justifying a security order of $1,195 to protect the respondent.
28 Apr 2023
The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidential proof of financial hardship (impecuniosity) by way of a sworn affidavit of means; under r 53F(g) and established High Court authority this is required and absent exceptional circumstances the Court will not waive or reduce costs, therefore the application is declined.
27 Mar 2023
The Council was entitled to costs; the Council's 2B calculation of $19,000.50 for the appeal was reasonable and materially less than earlier claimed amounts, MRMT did not contest the calculation or seek to be heard, the Council had waived its separate judicial review claim, and the Court therefore awarded $19,000.50 to the Council and directed the $1,195 security be paid to the Council in partial satisfaction.
16 Oct 2020
Because the applicant failed in his application and no proper or supported basis was put forward to refuse or reduce costs (no sworn affidavit or challenge to quantum), the court must apply the rules and award the claimed costs and disbursements to the Minister.
12 Feb 2013
The Registrar did not err in refusing to waive security for costs because the appellant failed to provide the necessary detailed financial evidence to establish impecuniosity or exceptional circumstances and failed to demonstrate the appeal was truly arguable; therefore security of $5,880 remains payable.
9 Feb 2011
The Registrar's decision requiring security for costs of $4,170 was a proper exercise of discretion: the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to waive security, impecuniosity alone was insufficient, the proceedings and proposed appeal were largely meritless or frivolous, and respondent protection against costs was justified; accordingly the review application is dismissed.