4 Jul 2023
The Deputy Registrar correctly applied Reekie; the appeal is hopeless and the appellant lacks standing because his causes of action vested in the Official Assignee on bankruptcy, therefore dispensation of security for costs was refused and the security (set at $28,240) was properly maintained; costs awarded to respondents.
21 Mar 2023
The Deputy Registrar correctly applied the Reekie principles and did not err in declining to dispense with security for costs because the mortgage/caveat was not an adequate substitute due to enforcement costs and delay, the appellants were not claiming impecuniosity and had realisable assets, and the appeal appeared unlikely to succeed; accordingly the review was declined and increased security for costs was required.
20 Oct 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal involved routine application of Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules to specific facts, raised no matter of general or public importance warranting this Court's intervention, did not justify revisiting Reekie, and did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice; accordingly leave is declined and costs awarded.
17 Aug 2015
The Registrar correctly declined to consider an out‑of‑time application because r 35(7) contains a mandatory 20 working day limit and she has no discretion to extend it; although a Judge could extend time under r 5(2), applying the Reekie test the appeal is not reasonably arguable and is a collateral attack on prior findings, so no extension should be granted and security for costs must remain payable.
14 Oct 2014
The Registrar's refusal to dispense with security for costs is upheld because there were no exceptional circumstances, impecuniosity alone is insufficient, the appeal lacks public importance and has weak prospects, and the appellant declined legal aid; security for costs in the sum of $5,880 is required.
29 Sept 2014
The Registrar correctly refused to dispense with security because the application was filed outside the 20 working day period established by the rules and enforcement of that time limit furthers the prompt resolution purpose of r 35; additionally, even if considered on the merits, dispensation was unwarranted because the appeal's potential benefit did not justify requiring the respondent to defend the judgment without usual protection as to costs and a solvent litigant would not sensibly pursue this appeal given ongoing interest and limited relief sought.
29 Aug 2014
The Registrar correctly refused to dispense with security because, although the appellant may be impecunious and the stakes were high for him, the appeal was hopeless on the evidence (including valuation shortfalls and the non‑qualifying cross claim), therefore security for costs of $5,880 must be paid.
14 Jul 2014
The Registrar did not err: the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to waive security for costs, impecuniosity alone is insufficient, and the appeal lacked merit so ordering security of $5,880 was justified.
30 Jun 2014
Time to file the application for dispensation of security for costs is extended to the date the application was filed (28 March 2014) and the application is referred to the Registrar because the delay was explained, caused no prejudice to the respondent, the appeal was not hopeless and there was material warranting consideration; the Court may extend time under r 5(2) though the Registrar cannot.
29 May 2014
The Registrar and single-judge reviews correctly applied the law: impecuniosity alone does not justify dispensing with security for costs; the Registrar should only dispense with security where it is right to require the respondent to defend the judgment without the normal protection of security; a Judge reviews such decisions de novo; appeals should only be permitted without security where a reasonable solvent litigant would pursue them (including merits and public interest considerations); applying those principles the Court dismissed the appeals and refused to waive security.