23 Aug 2023
The stay was declined because the factual and legal basis for the requested stay — pendency of a strike-out application — had terminated when the High Court had dismissed that strike-out application and the application was an abuse of process; accordingly the stay application lacked merit.
11 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal and stay were dismissed because the applicant did not challenge the settled principles governing security for costs, did not raise any question of general or public importance, and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave or stay and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the second respondent.
16 Aug 2017
Registrar did not err: the appellant failed to file sufficient financial particulars to establish impecuniosity; the appeal lacked merit and public interest; it was reasonable to require security for costs of $6,600 to protect respondents; therefore the review of the Registrar's refusal to dispense with security was declined and security ordered payable by 24 August 2017.
3 May 2017
The Registrar did not err in refusing dispensation because there was an evidential basis to doubt the appellant's inability to pay (including potential spousal access to funds) and the appeal had no real prospects of success; accordingly the discretionary balance favoured requiring security for costs.
14 Aug 2015
Registrar and Court of Appeal correctly concluded applicant did not establish impecuniosity and, critically, the appeal was not one a reasonable solvent litigant would pursue given its low prospects, history of vexatious conduct and modest security amount; accordingly dispensation was refused and security ordered.
15 May 2015
Wild J applied the Reekie criteria correctly; there was no material before the Court demonstrating error or miscarriage of justice in the Registrar's refusal to grant dispensation from security for costs, so leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 Apr 2015
Applying Reekie, the Registrar was entitled to refuse dispensation because the appellant did not establish impecuniosity or exceptional public interest, the appeal was not one a reasonable and solvent litigant would pursue, and the reputational publicity relied on did not amount to the kind of reputational interest contemplated by Reekie; accordingly security of $5,880 must be paid.
20 Mar 2015
The application for review under r 7(2) is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish impecuniosity or that a solvent litigant would reasonably wish to prosecute the appeal; the Deputy Registrar lawfully exercised her powers under the Rules; the appeal is vexatious; security for costs of $5,880 must be paid by 27 March 2015 and no hearing date will be allocated until paid.
23 Feb 2015
The Registrar correctly applied the Supreme Court's test in Reekie; the appeal has no real prospect of success and, even accepting the appellant's asserted impecuniosity for present purposes, it is not right to require the respondent to defend without security. Accordingly the Registrar's decision refusing to dispense with security for costs is upheld and the appellant must pay $5,880 into Court by the specified date.
20 Feb 2015
The review is dismissed because the appellant failed to provide the detailed financial disclosure the Registrar properly required, impecuniosity alone does not warrant dispensation, the appeal lacked merit such that a solvent litigant would not pursue it, and therefore it was not right to require the respondent to defend without security; security of $5,880 remains payable by the appellant.