Willoughby v Clayton Utz

[2008] WASCA 93

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Security for costs of appeal
4. › Relevant considerations
5. › Impecunious appellant
6. › Unpaid costs from prior action on same causes of action
7. › Whether order would stifle appeal
8. › Onus on appellant to adduce evidence of stifling effect
9. › Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), rr 3, 44(1)

Quick Take

Where an appellant owes substantial unpaid costs from a prior action based on substantially the same causes of action as the appeal, this is a relevant factor favouring an order for security for costs. An appellant who asserts that an order for security would stifle the appeal bears the onus of adducing evidence to that effect; bare assertion of impecuniosity without supporting evidence is insufficient.